User talk:DGG - Knowledge

3429:

example: to a historian, a newspaper is a primary source, because it is used as the data about which histories are written. To us it is a secondary source, because it's an professionally written and edited responsible covering of the events. To a biologist, a journal reporting research is a primary journal, as distinct from a journal that published review articles, but the actual primary source is the lab notebook. A historian of science studies both it and the publications as primary sources for the history. The same source can be both primary and secondary: an appellate court decision is both: it's the primary source for the wording of the decision, but it's a secondary source, and a highly reliable one, for the facts of the case and the appropriate precedents. In literature, the primary source is the work being discussed; the secondary source is the discussion, but the discussion is a primary source for the thoughts of the scholar in an biography of the scholar. For a fictional work, the work itself is, though primary, the best source for the facts of the plot, because it is more detailed and accurate than anything that may be based on it; for interpretation of motives, if not obvious, a wecondary source discussing the work must be used--but there is not clear distinction about what is sufficiently obvious. The practical distinction for Knowledge is that primary sources which cannot be used as such except as illustrations are those that require interpretation, because we do not do interpretation, which is original research. A textbook is often given as an example of a tertiary source, being based mostly on review articles; but advanced textbooks usually discuss the actual research article themselves to a considerable extent. And some textbooks, like Knuth's books on TeX and Metafont, are actually the primary sources, because the material presented there was never discussed previously and is of his own invention--unless one wishes to consider the program coe as the primary source.

6099:

guide someone to write a good article than to take over yourself and just fix it, but they learn more if you guide them, though as all teachers and students both know, it can be a very painful processs. Personally, I'm getting to think we might as well let them do manual direct editing, and just look at the results strictly. One process stream, through which everything passes. But the need to watch articles is a real problem, because we all of us who know how to do it have many more than we can effectively watch. I do go back over my deletion log every few months to see anything that turns black again--about half the time its OK, like a good redirect, and about half the time not. The problem of maintaining quality in a project this size was never realised 10 years ago. Elsewhere in the world too, I've seen so many project at all levels that start off great, but are difficult to maintain. Entropy never forgets, and maintenance always increases until its cost is more than the cost of construction. At some point in the future, WP, like any project, will get so top heavy we will need to start over on some better foundation that we do not yet envision. The published and social process people thought it would have happened already, and are still trying to figure out why it didn't collapse at 1 million articles and then 2 million (I think the answer in part is that we developed enclaves; you can fight entropy in an enclave by putting in work & letting things get even worse elsewhere) The other part is the continued ability to interest and attract very highly qualified people with great amounts of time to use, and willingness to use it here. I've done many times more for the diffusion of knowledge in 5 years here as a volunteer e than the previous 35 as a professional. I look on my training in science and librarianship and rteaching and administration and publishing as just the a preparation for this .

1225:

I've opposed some of the policies resulting from it, such as the excessively stringent NFCC restrictions beyond the requirements of copyright law, and the adoption of a BLP policy that permits use to suppress unfavorable but well-sourced articles on significant subjects, and is potentially destructive of NPOV. I saw their attempt last year to impose a policy of restricting sexual images, which was only reduced to some degree of reason by a change in board membership. I see their willingness to encourage a mechanism within Knowledge to facilitate outside censorship; again, the only thing which has kept this from being not just encouraged but required, was a change in board membership. This will be a recurrent issue. I oppose using them as a court of final appeal for issues within Knowledge, and shall continue to do so. This far outweighs almost any individual issue. Even though we may decide wrong, at least letting the WP community decide gives freedom of action to the individual Wikipedias to have divergent policies, and thus allows experiment even in sensitive areas, which is the only way to prevent stagnation. IMO, this applies both to the board and to the programmers. I opposed the introduction by the programmers of a crude and unscientific system of article rating, and their willingness to expand it, without each time getting explicit consent of the community. It has nonetheless apparently been accepted by the community, and I am not sure it is worth the effort to involve myself in its improvement. I opposed their attempt to introduce a deficient version of vector as the default, similarly--at least then, so did much of the community, and we were at least able to get it improved significantly.

3946:

loads of rules for others (namely the rules these kind of people set out for the others). Out friend DGA -maybe with the best intentions- has some of the 'properties' of such a person: his rule is law and other rules do not apply to him. Witch such a wide userbase you will always have those people. They shout murder when you limit them (eg block etc) and claim that you are limiting their freedom of speech, but when give the chance they will block anyone who doesn't think the way he/she does (in the country I left we have a politician working that way: he claims that freedom of speech is limitless and that he is entitled to say anything he likes about other people and entire communities - but when someone else tries to make a (very valid) comparisson between him and some guy from Austria who ruled Germany from 1932 onwards he runs to the judge to have such thoughts banned. And when he was proscuted he told (as member of parlement) that he didn't believe nor respect the law-system anymore if he wouldn't be aquited. And at the same time he calls the Islamic communities inferior to our society because our (western) society has such an independent and reliable rule of law. (And again: he want to end that independance of the judges by firing judge after 5 years if he doesn't hand out strict punishments; but those strict punishments should only be handed out to what he sees as crimes (and preferably give far stronger punishments to people from a Muslim background).... (If you can't follow it anymore - not your fault: I can't either)....

9513:

thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections. It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, & if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.

3018:"friendly" intention, or having been misunderstood. However, it is not enough to have good intention - one also needs not to use language that may predictably give the impression of an intent to give offence (even if none is intended). To give a concrete example: a number of years ago a user was accused of a racist post (I can't remember the details). Of course there was uproar. The user then protested he had no racist intent, and indeed was himself black (sorry if that's the wrong term). The defence was accepted. However, in a virtual community no one knows you are black - so don't use the language that requires that knowledge for context, because it is likely to be misunderstood by some and thus cause disruption. Same here: how one normally uses "cunt" is immaterial, that one doesn't intend a personal attack is good, but also insufficient. If you know that a form of words is likely to be seen as uncivil - just don't use it. We are trying to communicate in a multi-cultural, non-visual community. Sure, people should assume good faith, but you should not (as far as you are able) require them to understand your ethnicity, gender, culture, local linguistic practice, religion, or sexuality in order to understand your words. You should attempt (as you are able) to use language that transcends that - ans so deliberately using language that doesn't is disruption (or even trolling).-- 2993:

exceptionally crude statement. Its implication depends on the circumstances--it can be used in a positive sense between lovers. But even if the word were uniformly used in the UK as a strong compliment, even among strangers or people working together in offices, referring perhaps to the excellence of women as exemplified by their sexuality, and if nobody at all in the UK, even those of a previous generation, were ever offended, it still is offensive here, because we are not writing for a UK readership only, and it is obviously perceived by many people here as a crude insult. Even were all women uniformly in the English-speaking world to think it a friendly greeting, if any substantial number of men nonetheless considered it an insult to women, it would be offensive. All of these discussions about the intrinsic nature of this word or other words is entirely irrelevant to NPA. If words are perceived by at least some reasonable people here as offensive, that is what matters. I'm Jewish. If I'm called Jewish, I normally consider it a neutral descriptor, or sometimes a word of praise. If it's used to me as an insult, it's insulting because it considers my ethnicity a fit term to be used

1317:

editor's good faith. I've had no conversations with NoRaft. I sent him an email, suggesting he privately & confidentially tell me who he is, & what articles he had written, but had no response. I will not do something potentially problematic with someone who hides his identity from me, any more than I go down dark alleys with masked strangers. I can see his problem, though--he's promised his clients confidentiality, and by our own rules I can't insist he tell me. Therefore, I shall do as always: any article he or anyone known or unknown asks me to look at on-wiki, I will look at and give my opinion and advice, on-wiki. I'll talk with even masked strangers in bright lit public places. I do not think Jimbo's ruling has literal consensus, but is rather one of the pious statements that nobody will openly challenge, but nobody will actually follow. It is even contradicted by his own statement of our basic policy, that anyone can edit. Anonymity has its benefits, but also its problems, and can lead to such paradoxes.

2721:

that is notable will certainly be important or significant, while a great many things that may have some good-faith importance will still not be notable. When I first came here, I asked the same question you are asking, and suggested clarifying this by saying importance or significance or notability. The answer I was given by those of more experience is that it is better to avoid using the word "notable" entirely in defining A7, because it will inevitably lead to people asking an article be deleted because of no demonstration of notability, which is asking too much--only the community can decide notability, whether passively at WP:PROD or actively at AfD. Admins have views on this that are too diverse for them alone to be trusted, and notability can in many cases be pretty nebulous. But if something is totally insignificant, we pretty much all agree, and speedy A7 is therefore limited to the types of things we all normally agree on.

2342:

many other topics--we have much to gain by not having debates about every one of the tens of thousands of articles involved. We hare more harmed by inappropriate promotional articles about academics --just as about everything else--than we are by slight variations in the standard of notability. Time spent at AfD on determining borderline notability is time that should be better spent in patrolling new articles (and re-patrolling the older ones). Much better to have a simple standard, and concern ourselves with content. But in any case, this particular full professor is notable, but, as is often the case, the article needs a little rewriting isn't done in quite the best way to show it, and I will either do some rewriting or at least offer some advice for doing it. I apologize for not going into the details here, but they'll be clear in the finished articles, where the citations will show him an expert in his subject.

7856:

formal guidelines, the interpretation can gradually change--and in fact is changing. For even myself, a supporter of inclusionism in business articles, the degree of my enthusiasm is much less than it used to be, & my likelihood of making drastic cuts in promotional content is much higher--so much higher, that these have become my principal activities here. Where I used to rewrite, I will often stubbify; where I used to stubbify, I will now delete or nominate for deletion. If the writing for smaller yet notable companies does not greatly improve, that level of company will soon no longer be considered notable. The obvious fact that nobody is in control here gives a false impression that one can try to get away with anything. But with enough eyes, no corner is too obscure to escape notice, and we have by now learned that maintaining a neutral encyclopedia requires standing up for it firmly.

2873:

social space - because it is clearly anti-social pubic language, only tolerated in certain - generally male - in-groups). No, my reference to the US was not that Americans are less civil, it is that there seems to me a Wikipedian reluctance to clamp down on certain types of speech. Go into most British public spaces and use the word "cunt", and you'll soon be asked to shut-up or leave. Use it in the hearing of customers in most workplaces - you'll be fired. And if in any particular sub-culture that's not the case, you won't be able to operate within any wider culture unless you learn how to adapt. Knowledge is a wider culture. I may, inadvertently, happen to use a word that's acceptable "where I come from" - but once I am made aware of the wider cultural sensitivities, I must surely desist. The idea those involved here don't realise this is, quite frankly, not tenable.--

3942:

an article of which he thinks it should be deleted by adding the 'hidden' template: and maybe you could use the existing technique of hidden catagory: just as a technical means of the mentor/buddy or (other) fully qualified DGG's to find the marked/tagged potential SD requests by sorting on this hidden catagory. So it was meant as using existing Wiki technology without having any direct visable impact on the page in question. But as often, there are more ways to Rome: the aDGG could also just keep record of the pages he checked and the articles he thinks should be tagged for SD or 'normal' deletion etc. This could be done on a special page. But using the existing technique of hidden catagory is imho a nice technical way of doing it which is relative easy to implement such a scheme without adding burocracy or demanding new processes/technology in the background.

1491:, which has several good third party sources, and would almost certainly pass AfD. When someone says , but X has an article, there are three possibilities. Most commonly, X is famous, and then almost always the proposed subject is hopelessly non-notable & the claim is absurd—naïve but well-meaning editors argue this a lot, often for self-published authors. Also common, is that X is in fact borderline notable at best, and quite possibly should be deleted also—spammers often use this argument & there's an obvious course to follow, which usually stops their questioning, though it will hardly satisfy them. But, rarely, it is a reasonable protest: either we are generally inconsistent in the area involved, in which case it should go to AfD, to take its chances in the coin toss, or there actually was an error in evaluating X. 2459:

how the cultural network is built. The significance of something is that it becomes a standard example that others will recognize. Entire art forms are constructed around this principle: parody, mash-up, collage, sampling. But even in ordinary work, its important what is shown: this is the sort of thing people study in not just literature and cultural studies, but history. There are books and articles, both scholarly and popular, written on , for example, the specific naval references in Jane Austen. or the geographic elements used by Shakespeare,the drinks people drink in a fictional work, the legendary characters or historical events they assume the audience will know about. This sort of information should be part of the content of a comprehensive encyclopedia like ours, which is not limited except by what people want to include.

2633:

and abstracts help sell article access. Usually we do not give the specifics of this in the article, because it;s fairly standard and subject to change. We certainly don't let any journal doing this imply they have free access. Now, if we could persuade the publishers to make everything free except the most recent issue or two, it would be a small step forward--though that of course is not open access, which requires the final version to be free to read and otherwise use upon publication, which, from the point of view of disseminating ideas, is the only acceptable solution. I sort of know this by heart, having spent the last 10 years of my professional career on negotiating and arranging for e-journal access for a university (and have kept up since then), and been since 1999 an active advocate of true open access.

1460:

some sort; the question is then what sort of blogs count as reliable for the purposes of notability. In the past, Knowledge has been notably restrictive in this, but as more and more other responsible sources appear in this format, things are changing. There's a subsidiary question in each particular case of whether the coverage in the references is substantial, but that's essentially the same question as with references in any media, and amounts to a question of judgement. Such judgements can depend not on the merits but on what one wishes to prove, since often each position can be justified. The prevailing attitude, which to some measure I share, is extreme skepticism. I summarize it by saying that for someone to be notable, they have to have actually done something notable -- in the ordinary meaning of the word.

5926:

content of the only universally visible publication ever; it is the newcomers who will maintain our vigor. We are not making progress here: while dramatic improvements in the editing interface are forthcoming, it seems we are about to adopt a policy which will drastically decrease the ability for newcomers to write new articles. There is nothing more important than people. Content is relatively trivial: what we do not improve today we can improve tomorrow, but a person once discouraged almost never returns. We have projects to write better forms, but we will never write an adequate form--we need projects to educate people without them. We have excellent bots for routine tasks, and effective edit filters, but we seem unaware that this is a human enterprise requiring friendly personal spontaneous human communication.

8846:

formal guideline. Though there is a formal guideline that COI editing is strongly discouraged, there are wide differences in its interpretation, with well-regarded people here taking completely opposite positions. Some would revert to the formal position when I joined: that a COI editor may not write an article ever or even suggest one, but wait until somebody uninvolved notices the topic is important. Others would actively encourage COI editing and concentrate on improving it, emphasizing that all guidelines inherently have exceptions. (And during the period where it was most strongly discouraged, the encyclopedia nonetheless became filled with it, and most of it remains.) Even the "safe" method (AfC) that we recommend is very inconsistent in application and results, whichI will discuss elsewhere.

3053:(There are some people who unfortunately are not, and may indefinitely require guidance; one special aspect is that people with these difficulties are often attracted to our relatively impersonal setting; though we say WP is not therapy, it can be, or at least can be a safe environment--but just as in society generally, it is very difficult to encourage these individuals while also protecting the others, and we therefore will always need mechanisms of isolation. But never punishment--having social difficulties is not anyone's fault in a moral sense (or at least so I like to say, perhaps excusing those of my own). But we are justified in asking those who can control themselves to do so, and educating those who for whatever reason have not learned the expected standard——and gently removing the others. 8850:

you out of trouble, but such is the situation. In formal organizations there is authority to appeal to, when needed for bypassing obstructive people, but there is deliberately nobody here with authority over content. Nor in most places is there such a wide contrast between our theoretical very open acceptance of newcomers, and our apparently ineradicable suspicion of them. The apparent rule is not "everybody can edit, but "everybody can edit, unless it's about a subject your deeply care about--and even so you must learn our rules before starting, though there is no practical way to learn without extensive experience here." if you do things our way, but it is impossible to learn what it is without a few years of experience.I will try a rewrite based on putting this at the beginning, not the end.

1474:

practice for a questioned A7 speedy like this: first I give the fairest advice I can, which in this case is that without real sources it will surely be rejected in its present form, so it would be best to submit it again once there are sources; and then, if the person still wants me to, I undelete and send it to AfD (they rarely do, if I give the advice clearly enough). It's easier than arguing. If I was right, it'll be deleted, and there will be grounds for a G4 in case of the almost inevitable re-creation. (The only problem is that sometimes it might not be a good faith article, in which case the subject deserves to be protected against the negative comments at AfD. That's not the case here--they want the publicity. The previous speedy of a much sketchier version was deleted on A7

6047:

controversy and adding advert. Or donating my time to help a COI in AfC, who refuses to follow my very simple instructions and goes bat crazy over a peacock tag that he won't even leave up for 1 day while I ask the editor that posted it. I already feel like I hate COIs. I don't think it's good for my health. It sounds like a good idea to help people, but they use direct editing as a threat "if you don't XYZ, I'm going to remove it in two hours." They feel empowered in a way they would never behave if working with the New York Times. Even instances where COIs appear to be resolved and collaborative, three months later they come back and censor the entire section they had just collaborated on. No wonder the community feels how they do. I'm already growing bitter :-(

1229:

to make an article is one of the primary motivating factors for editing. It is however possible that I have misjudged, and the proven discouraging effect of the extremely negative comments that new editors encounter is even worse, and the decrease in this might counterbalance the negative effects of not being able to immediately start an article. The only effective thing I can do in this case is to try to persuade people to diminish the length of the trial, and try to find ways of working with new editors despite the constraints, and, perhaps, try to keep fewer promising articles from being rejected via the article creation process--at present, too many of the few people working there insist on a good quality, rather than just an acceptable article.

9487:

around, and delete 700 "easy" ones, that leaves 300 left of which 1/3 ought to be declined. So it is possible both can be right. Now, I'm not saying that 100% closers are always right, but we'd have to check some of the close lists to be sure. Which brings me to my pother point. When I was a new admin, I half expected someone would be assigned to follow me around for some time, just to make sure I was understanding the rules correctly. Either that didn't happen, or they were very, very quiet. (I'm even more surprised it isn't SOP at OTRS, but that’s a different issue.) I think we should have a more formal review system for new admins. I know there's the ability to check with someone else, but I'd like to see something more formal.

6254:

one is to spend my time u-grading this afc-passed articles, and thus single-handedly work indefinitely to restore credibility to a system ; or start looking for arguments for deletion of such articles, which means expanded the interpretation of what we consider promotional writing that is unimprovable and needs deletion, or narrow the limits of what sort of references we accept for articles on organizations & people connected with them, or possibly trying to change the deletion criteria otherwise. I have made comments at a few current AfDs that show my try at this approach. In other words, the flood of junk has done to me what similar things have turned to others, turned me into a deletionist.

3050:

more than the others, they may be an actual problem, and, in this encyclopedia, they can be connected sometimes with age and first-language; I've learned to avoid these also. But the basic rule remains, that in a very public setting, where you are interacting with a range of individuals of unknown identity and background, with extremely variable preferences and expectations for formality, and a wide range of expectations, it is necessary to be extremely careful how you say and do things. It might sound like this is asking a lot: but we're all trained in language use and interpersonal interactions from infancy, and even children are aware of the concept of hurting other people's feelings.

7740:

Knowledge, who very often get blocked right out of the gate, as you observe. This is one reason I invited Orangemike, as this might be a tool he would use via UAA concerns, Nobody Ent, Kim Dent-Brown, The Bushranger and others who have unique and valuable perspective and of course you, whose opinions I always appreciate. I'm hoping to get others to pitch in on the actual content, as I don't wish it to be solely my opinion and words, but clearly a community "help" guide. And I'm not married to the name either. Would like to hear other opinions on that at the talk page. With help, I don't think it would take a great deal of time to get this up to par since the scope is narrow enough.

6313:

there is general agreement about what is absolutely not acceptable. For an editor to try to make their articles just passable is folly--there is almost a guarantee that they will often lose them. The only sure way to keep them is to make them good enough to resist challenge. All cut-rate paid editing is doomed whenever the standards rise. And there's an inherent difficulty to making them excellent: excellent articles here cannot be written by a single person. it requires not polished work, but work good enough and open enough to encourages others to polish it. Unless you write articles that disinterested people want to make even better, they will always be vulnerable.

6439:

able to be sourced, and "verifiable" as able to be verified. Both of us are know the limitations of the Googles well enough to be fairly sophisticated at searching them, & we are both aware there are other sources also. We don't expect others to be as thorough as we would--if everyone was, we'd have no need to even comment, because many articles would never get nominated for deletion. We do hope for a moderate degree of inventiveness & imagination, for most of the people here are rather good at those two mental characteristics. We do expect people will not try to judge notability in fields were they wouldn't be able to find sources if they existed.

3891:

just Prod: I think experience is showing that improper Prod and especially AfD templates are at least as much harm as speedy to the people who receive them. Not necessarily for over-deleting articles--in principle admins are supposed to be careful in what they speedy, check carefully all expired prods, and come to correct conclusions at AfD. Admins do not necessarily do any of these very well==the error rate is at least 5% and probably more like 10-15% in each direction for each process (5% might be the best we can do on average, 15% is much too high) And I am equally concerned about things that do not get caught by the inexperienced, especially copyvio.

7811:

expectations for newspaper or magazine articles. A less reputable publisher of course tends to present it much less carefully filtered & rewritten. The difficulty at Knowledge is despite good intentions, we cannot count on having skillful editing of the material, and so we have had the policy of rejecting information from organizations, for fear we will be unable to evaluate it. But after 4 years here working with this material, I know it can be done; I'm currently trying to rewrite at least one promotional article a day, many of long standing--including some I accepted in past years when I had not yet developed a sufficiently skeptical eye.

10042:

absence of the production of the games, I would normally have considered that a very small company like that gave no indication of possible importance, and speedy deleted it. With that information, it needs to be properly considered to see whether references can be found that will more clearly show the notability. I remind you of the general notability standard, WP:GNG, which is a widely accepted guideline, under which it will depend upon what sources can be found. The extent to which the sources write about the company rather than the games is a matter for discussion--the decisions here are often very much disputed interpretations.

3847:

assistant NPP / NPP in training has indeed spotted the correct articles for SD and if he uses the correct reasons for deletion. If not the experienced patroller explains to the assistant patroller what went wrong; give him feedback how to correctly recognize SD candidates etc. Once the aNPP reaches a consistant quality and a low rate of incorrect nominations he can then be promoted to a real patroller: in this way new NPP's can learn the job in a correct manner and safely make the errors evey new starting NPPer will make. Only if people who write the articles would specifically look for the hidden SD template would know that a

6319:

things similarly, we may end by driving you away at whatever cost to our coverage. The only way you have of resisting it is to such good work that we can not plausibly object to it, and that mean meeting the expectations of an overwhelming consensus. In practice a few people here who persist in objecting can cause a stalemate. And this will affect not only the new articles; there are tens of thousands of old ones in equally poor condition. My comments at AfD and Deletion Review will show on a current basis how my thinking develops; it's there in the trenches that I do my work, though I may come here to summarize.

3433:

Reviews, even though different discussions may contradict each other. An encyclopedia is not a machine-written summary, but a work of creative human judgment about what to include, how to source it, and how to present it. The concept that we just repeat what the sources say in a proportionate way is overly simplistic: it helps teach beginners the principles, but does not actually decide any non-trivial cases. The examples which makes that clearest are the unfortunate widespread use of selective quotation and cherry-icking in controversial articles. I'll get things started by copying this into an essay.

7719:

yours is directed to, though much applies to anyone. You also need to explain that policies and guidelines contain contradictions. And in the other direction, there are a few absolute NOs, such as don't remove uncomfortable facts, but use the talk page, & if necessary, OTRS. There's some wording changes needed; for example, the RS problem is as much pR-based sources as blogs, WP:N is not policy, but a guideline, and WP:BRD is an essay which not everyone agrees with--personally, I think it in practice a temptation to violate the policy WP:CIVIL--when I started I was astounded people were actually

3864:

under his wings and be his mentor during his (or her) training period. But I do think that the pay-out is worth it: Wiki does need a fresh supply of volunteers who do some of the more unthankful jobs - but when you setup a good training and monitor/buddy program you will be rewarded by getting good NPPers on board. (And such a program where a NPP gets a good training and support at the start of his career might endorse people to volunteer for the job: I can imagine that some people are put off of being a NPP because they are afraid that they would make errors and then get blamed for it).

8425:

Pulitzer Prize winner Barbara Tuchman and other well known authors. The fact is that the editors there have made absolutely no effort for years to use in-line citations and that is required on En-Knowledge. Because I was and am presently committed to other articles and cannot spend the time on the Hundred Years War articles at this time, I thought perhaps I would give a suggestion for those resources on-line with the presumption that they knew what to do with them and how to use them. Another (minor) thing I wanted to correct was that I am a woman editor. Thankyou again.

5907:

just in the impression it gives but in the efforts of good people necessary to resolve it. Every debate about whether a borderline article is notable or not is detrimental--the effort would be better spent improving it, and on quickly removing the actually harmful. We have three rapidly achievable ways to improve here, if we have the will to do them: decrease in hostility and uncivil behavior by removing those who do it and by experienced people setting good examples, with emphasis on increasing cooperation and decreasing use of the inherently confrontational

8925:

have to do much with contributed articles we offer them. The obvious (yet unrealistic) feedback is to ask editors to do volunteer work first. I suppose you could say I'm working on the private-sector solution to the experience problem. Volunteers shouldn't have to drain the community's resources (except when they choose to voluntarily, because they enjoy it) to literally work for free FOR the paid editor. So someone like me gets the paycheck, by convincing someone like you to do the work for me. On the other hand, I hope many editors will collaborate with me,

5314:

it comes to content creation. If we don't draw clear lines, we lower the trust in the admin system overall. And there is no prestige like admin prestige when it comes to editing, in the eyes of the non-admin. Many non-admins are very much afraid to revert a bold edit of an admin, or even speak out about an admin, either assuming "they know best" or fear of retribution. I never was, but you always thought that I sought out trouble unnecessarily anyway ;) That we undermind trust even more, this is a great concern of mine. It is already bad enough.

4997:

being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory), it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.

1706:. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. 3315:, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Knowledge administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community 10365:

article, there is no point discussing it here: that's what the AfD is for, and I think I've said as much there as would be useful. The decision to merge or separate is based not only on whether the topics can stand alone, but on whether that is the best way to deal with it at Knowledge. There are no firm rules for that, and we consider each case individually. Even the formal WP:N guideline is quite specific that not everything that can technically justify a separate article should necessarily have one.

2044: 7817:

independent opinions of them the company may have collected. From this they will make their own judgments of value. The other is that the style of presenting material is different when you're outside the material, and I am not sure how practical it is to expect most people whose professional careers have been within one framework, to adopt another. (There are analogous difficulties for people who have spent their career writing academic papers or computer manuals or music reviews.)

3042:"Don't needlessly disrupt Knowledge" can apply to a great many things. In a sense, it's the basis of all offenses--contributing or commenting in such a way as to make trouble for people. It includes persistently submitting unacceptable articles, or persistent attempts to remove acceptable ones. Or copyvio, edit-warrring, or promotionalism--especially non commercial promotion of a cause. All of these take effort to deal with, and interfere with work directed to building the encyclopedia. 9561:

Sections 4, 5 and 6 ready to review, which should be easy and fast to do in the different format, where I give the opinion, then later on, I give the actual result below it. Only a cursory comment is required on each section if there aren't any errors noted. This assumes you have a little time (Boing has been tied). If you don't have the time, that is fine as well as this is a lower priority than your regular rounds, to be sure. It has been a burden, but a promise is a promise.

2729:

If the reason is not immediately obvious to me, I ignore such requests or ask for a reason. Sometimes it's because the author realizes the difficulty of writing an adequate article, and doesn't want an inadequate one to stand. Sometimes, the author is not convinced it will hold up at AfD, and would rather avoid a very public process about it--our AfD process is apt to make a mountain out a a molehill. (In this case, guessing from the author's talk p., I think both reasons apply.)

8503:

to give some information about costs, though not of course detailed pricing. Is it in fact affordable for solo attorneys? Is it found in law schools? Are there academic rates? Is it intended ' exclusively for "lawyers and legal professionals." I am aware that comp-anies often consider some of this proprietary information, but the expectation of an encyclopedia is that it will provide whatever can be publicly sourced, and such things are probably mentioned in the articles about it.

1233:

deletions of articles on people who could have been sourced had anyone experienced here had the time & incentive to do it under a deadline--and it has not noticeably decreased the number of incoming unsourced BLP articles. I've given up on getting rid of it, even though it takes a good deal of my time to prevent whatever percentage of inappropriate deletions I manage, and thus has decreased my participation in other things, such as just this sort of policy discussion.

1616:. It took a lot of in-depth online searches, refining my search terms and developing techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I was able to uncover lots of reliable source material in a week or two of effort. I think the same can be said of an article like this one. An editor could take this on as a personal project, as I did with Mr. Yount, and a much better article could result. If we delete the article, the chances for that outcome are greatly reduced. 10046:

because of the importance of what they write, musicians by what the perform, companies by what they produce. Our practice for authors and painters are fairly clear: two notable works = notability; one work, even, if it is important enough. In practice, for companies we tend to be more restrictive. For companies of this sort, that make intellectual products, it is to some extent a matter of judgment. I don't do the judging. No admin has the right to. Only if we are

7575: 7615: 9758:

interrelated pages up to the first level where there is enough sourcing and encyclopedia value to maintain articles. whether that be national time, regional, state, country, continental or whatever. With regard to the G5, the policy is clear. Its a valid deletion but there is nothing to stop someone recreating it to replace the deleted content. I'd say that any recreation would be without prejudice to a further listing at AFD or a wider subject area RFC.

4340:. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! 1762: 7838:

smaller yet notable companies, there is very little controversy and fewer interested editors. So I think the approach will vary, especially depending on the amount of controversy/negativity. The other issue is what I'll call the "ethics tax" - meaning it is much faster, cheaper and more effective to edit Knowledge "less ethically" (but perhaps more risky). One of the reporter's questions were "what is the ROI of ethics?" I get this question a lot.

1396:

while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation.

5671: 8999:, resolving a dispute through good judgement instead of policy citation wars. I could see us working something similar into the essay. I think requesting factual corrections, sharing sources, etc. is fairly straightforward and non-controversial, but making substantial content contributions is where we could take a more reserved stance, expressing that most companies can't meet Knowledge's content needs and editors may or may not be helpful. 8895:

volunteer work. Only ~20% of my job is writing articles. The rest is education, consulting and content negotiation, with up to 50+ internal stakeholders at a single company(the record so far). Molding companies to work incrementally, voluntarily accept a lack of control and endorse extreme honesty and transparency is an intricate task. An article I could write in 8 hours as a volunteer would take 8 months as a consultant. It's hard work!!

3950:

even slow/normal deletion) is really very de-motivating and newcomers who find their very 1st article to be marked for deletion is a near guarentee to never see another article from that author again: even if the article never got deleted. I do think that we do need a quality control on NPPs : or a requirement in the sense of that a potential NPP has to have experience in writing (new) article himself or by being assistant NPPer first.

10130: 9896: 7511:

you and the reason A7 was given. I've been a little busy lately but others have since asked me why we no longer have a wikipedia presence. I would like to complete our wiki page and maintain it as we did our old one. Please tell me what I need to do to get off the restricted list and back up and running. I cannot create a new site because our name is now held in limbo. Your help is appreciated. Our old page was and our new name is .

7961:

PR person confronted with this is OTRS. The OTRS people are practiced at sounding as professional or bureaucratic as necessary to be convincing, while still maintaining our values.. (I do a little such work for schools complaints & i think I have always satisfied people that we're doing what we can, though not necessarily what they would like.) Second, the 4th reason for working by our accepted practices is that you will

3868:(Those are the same people that want to be Wiki moderator as it gives them some extra "power buttons", not because they are really interested in improving Wiki according to the reached consencus on what is a good article but rated to their own view on whats good and what isnt. And imho: if such a buddy/training program for new NPPers would put of this catagory of people from even applying for the job it is another win !! 9632: 8499:"all-inclusive predictable pricing model" You have an uncited, though certainly plausible, opinion about the motives of the company-- And it is not reasonable to end with a sentence praising the firm. You might in fact want to look for other opinions on that sponsorship--I would be surprised if someone didn't consider it a potential threat to a free resource, by making it dependent upon a commercial competitor. . 7691:

time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page.

8372:

long. Attempts to change material and/or add references based on citable material is vehemently fought by a few who, unfortunately do not use that same energy to comply with the guidelines. The template will, on a particular day have England the victor, on another, will have France the victor. Would you please look at these four articles? They need, I think, your unique expertise. Thank you.

4809: 4266: 4041: 10369:

AfD decisions depend not on the plain meaning of the guideline, but the interpretation of the various aspects of "reliable". How can it be otherwise? The world is not divided into notable and non notable, and there is only a clear boundary when we adopt some artificial fixed distinction that does not depend on the vagaries of available referencing. The entire meaning of notability is what '

2736:; if they have substantial reviews, he meets WP:AUTHOR. However, depending on the extent of the reviews, the books seem rather routine, and that publisher, while often publishing books of very high quality and significance, also sometimes publishes works of quite minor importance. If someone brought it to AfD, there are others things I'd think better worth the effort of defending. 9517:

important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies.

8275:

way when the eventual result will make much of the speculation worthless. The case of Orville seems different in that its nature seems quite settled and so we are able to write in a reasonably factual way. Its disgusting nature is a matter of style and taste and I fancy I could cover it in a suitably po-faced way. Note that it was I that started the article about

1237:

not limit the trial to the intended purpose, ended up by rejecting it, at least in its present form. (The community asked the developers to improve it for another trial, and the developers, not unreasonably, were unwilling to do the amount of work involved if it was going to be to be rejected in the end, as they I think correctly foresaw it would be.)

1292:, reminded me exactly of your recent comments on Wales's talk page about identifying when a PR firm has written something...a list of milestones, reference to the company being first at numerous things, etc. As a side note, I don't know (and maybe you don't want to make public) how your conversations with NoRaft went, but I support the idea of working 9509:

nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said , in a direction of my own,

7035:

who happens to show up. I see no reason why an ambassador to the US should be more notable than an ambassador from the US -- or indeed any pair of countries. Checking, it seems about half the US ambassadors are career civil servants; the others are political or civic or business figures who are often even more notable for their outside careers.

5366:"admin" button on their page, and would still hesitate to revert. Most editors don't know the reputation of any admin, and think of admins like they would in a forum: the guys that can block you. Most don't bother and are not interested in the political side of Knowledge. I wasn't even recently, until I saw some of the side effects. 9307:, which was deleted a couple of days ago, was not present on the main article and I would like to restore it and userfy it into my userspace. Could you do that for me? I have no intentions in creating the article again, I just think some useful information may be put back into the main article. I'd really appreciate the help. Thanks. — 3001:

welcome newcomers, the longer a person is here, the great should be their politeness. It's the same as an expert trying for OWNership of an article: for a true expert, their edits will prove it. If those of longer standing have the ability to determine our practice, it will be because their experience enables them to best explain it.

3524:

comprehensive freely available encyclopedia with proper scholarly editing, but I don't think our methods can produce one. If it is tried, it should be as a separate project, but the experience at Citizendium has been very discouraging. The most problematic questions are: who will pick the experts?, and , what if they disagree?.

1126:

I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.

6307:

afc; there is no way of imposing on me to accept lower. If people do not agree on an article, the community decides at AfD, and the result will be unavoidable inconsistent. Such are the rules of play, & such they are likely to remain. Those who wish to engage here must work within them or they will fail in their purposes.

4970:

doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)

2010:// Add ] launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function () { addPortletLink( "p-tb", // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )}); 6666:

seen at BLP PROD: if there is an unsatisfactory article, and we know we can fix it by a careful sourcing or rewrite,rather than delete it, should we do so? I think what we should best do in such circumstances is to try as much as reasonable to get the ed to do it themselves, and that is what I was trying to do above.)

2725:

subjects that are of different grades of importance: varying from none at all, to a complex set of related articles. But people here like what might appear to be simple yes-no distinctions——but then they find themselves quarreling endlessly about everything anywhere near what they thought was a clear the borderline.

6435:

if I did not intend to convince others to agree with it?) Uncle G and I think alike for many articles, but not always, and I have differed from him at times in every possible direction. In that first article you mention my judgment was a little different from both of them. In the others I have not yet commented.

1364:, and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. 3057:

those who are most readily to hurt others can very readily take offense themselves——AN/I or RfC/U are good places to observe this; I rather doubt many of those who say it does not matter to them, and that this should be an environment where everyone is expected to be tough and impervious, both taking and giving.

3107:

unjustified rudeness are rather common; I said I sometimes receive some after I've deleted an article, no matter what I've actually said. I would never support a rule that we act too strongly on even true rudeness if it's sporadic, but we should act firmly and consistently when it becomes habitual or defiant.

6156:? Or if not, what can we do to make it less advert? I've only done a dozen or two AfC submissions and I found the process extremely efficient. But I'm just learning, so humbly interested in your feedback. I noticed we consistently had different answers in AfDs and it's interesting to be on the other side. 3767:

for the job. If my first article had been controlled by DGA I probably would have stopped contributing anything to Wiki ever again. He even tells that he has experienced the same thing, so he knows the feeling, and in the same sentence he says it his his job to 'rip up a paper' and say that it 'is crap'.

6528:! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond. 6340:

with the same degree of professional expertise as we do in other mediums. Did you know we (as marketing professionals) have vast amounts of data on what makes the most viral tweet, the most compelling blog post and years of experience pitching timely stories to the media - yet we are lost on Knowledge.

10376:

I recognize the discontent when the initial views at an AfD lead in one's desired direction, and continued argument involving a wider range of Wikipedians changes the consensus. But it is just such extended discussions which bring forth a more general consensus that that of those who are particularly

10289:

The article on the characters has real content essential to the understanding of a creative work that would not adequately fit elsewhere. For a long running show, the material can be too complex for a single article. (I make no comment about the quality of the creative work, because I have never seen

10219:

Even more than a film not qualifying for CSD, a concept for a film, or a concept of any sort, does not qualify for CSD--it's much too uncertain a thing to be unquestionable.. Nor does it qualify for an undoubted hoax, because an undoubted hoax is something that can be seen to be a hoax on the face of

9516:

When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more

9486:

You remarked, "I typically decline about 1/3 of the Speedy deletions I see, but some admins close essentially everything, Either I or they must be doing it wrong." I say, "not necessarily". To make an extreme example, suppose there are 1000 xSDs, with 100 of them badly tagged. If some new admins poke

8853:

The basic problem I have is that it is being approached from the paid editor perspective, not the COI perspective. It applies just as much to non-profit or even amateur organizations, as it does to companies, and it does not depend on whether one gets compensation. The only special problem with paid

8845:

We do not disagree. I was not satisfied with my wording in context, but neither am I satisfied with the previous wording, or the current. is a fundamental problem, and the page is being evasive about it. It is very difficult to give advice when practice deviates widely and inconsistently from the

8498:

Glad you asked. Your article is an improvement, though I would have used more of the existing comment and references. But it is promotional. You should replace most of the repeated mentions of the name with a phrase such as "the service' or "it". You use too much PR jargon, such as "real-time" and

8299:

I have always admired your great skill with these topics. People will always disagree about individual cases. To me, the GCM has clear very high notability because of the book, without any irony. I differentiate between history and current gossip. As for politics, tho it is not an exact analogy, I

7960:

But a few specifics. first, We do not intend to be a friendly place for people expressing grudges. I remove or greatly condense such material when I see it, although it is necessary to separate the removal of over-emphasis from the attempt at a cover-up. I think the best approach for an individual

7855:

If we at WP cannot get promotional editing under control, our response is likely to be more stringent standards for the notability of business and other organizations, & greater selectivity in the content of those we keep. There have already been such proposals, and even without a change in the

7225:

The question is not whether the book is scientifically reliable; the question is whether the cite in it that the b.e. is a " time-honored classic" shows notability; reliable in this sense means editorially discriminating in some sensible manner between different books, and it does: it is one of the 2

7178:

certainly plagiarism, yes, but also certainly US-PD. Otherwise I would have simply speedy deleted it. I commend the US for its US-PD policy, but it does cause difficulties with material like this. Perhaps we should have a rule that copy of the official source for an organization whether or not PD

7034:

What I say in an edit summary when I deprod is the reason i deprodded. it is not intended as a statement of policy. I consider ambassadors notable; I can't say consensus would support this 100% of the time, for consensus at AfD can depend on how carefully the matter is researched & argued—and on

6995:

All that is needed to remove a prod is a disagreement that it should be deleted without a community discussion. Prods are for deletions that nobody is expected to contest. The way I judge it, is that it's the highest level of the profession. If you want to go by GNG, I would not rule it out without

6677:

refuse to restore an article if another admin or equally trusted user asked me. Perhaps I defer to other admins too much, or you too little. After all, I could have said, you are being unreasonable, and restored it myself. The definition of wheel warring permits it. (Perhaps we define it incorrectly,

6665:

More generally, I am not sure of the advice I gave above, which you quoted. It is my intention if the person insists further to restore the article and fix it myself. In fact, when I re-read the source this morning, I may do that even if not requested. (This is part of the general problem more often

6197:

On the other hand, the prevailing wisdom of pro-paid editing advocates is that the community has an obligation to help COIs and in a hurry, quick, before they edit themselves! As a result, many posts in the {{request edit}} queue or paid editor help board lead to volunteers swooping down and spawning

5815:

I'm perplexed by how to handle the dynamic. I noticed a comment on one AfD suggesting your vote was motivated by a need to discourage poor-quality COI spam and I thought I would just ping you to get your response. Am I way off the mark here? I'm perplexed by what is the best practices, to punish COIs

4969:

All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have

4877:

Hi DGG. I received your message about recommending the Golden Plate list article for deletion. Please tell me what the G11 criterion is upon which you rely. Before posting the article, I researched Lists policies, which appeared consistent with this article. So I need to see specifically what you are

4706:

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it!

4667:

Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but

4408:

Even though I am very avid about being able to be a new page patroller again, I know I need to be careful about what I do. Now for the first few days, I will patrol lightly, until I feel that by success rate is 95% or higher. Being a new page patroller on Knowledge is a very important job, and should

3908:

we already do have a way of dealing with people who do not want to be monitored: we monitor them. This is an open wiki, and people who edit inappropriately, whether at NPP or anywhere else, attract attention. When I do NPP, it is primarily to check on the work of other new page patrollers, as well

3720:

The fact that you believe everyone in America is a 13 year-old girl is depressing. None the less he is on the Netherlands Knowledge because he has some importance to it, while on the English he has none. Even if he does, (I have been proven wrong) have some significance, it is not needed. Many people

3629:

yes, I'll get back there. But as you can see from the item just above,I do not have the luxury of being able to concentrate on any one thing here. sometimes everything appears equally important. And, as you can also see from the line it italics there, everything seems inter-related. We can't improve

3503:

I have just seen your extremely helpful reply above and, as I was reading it, I thought it would be well worth making into an essay. I am glad you think so too! Coming from a scientific background I had no difficulty in understanding that WP "original research" was merely a term of wikispeak and that

3432:

In any given situation at Knowledge , the guideline however written will always require interpretation, and the authoritative place for interpretation is WP:RSN--even though the individual interpretations may be contradict each other; just as the authoritative determination of notability is Deletion

3428:

There is no simple guideline. partly because there is no definition of "primary sources" that applies to all types of subjects, and party because the possible uses of them in Knowledge are very various. Attempts to write one are what have generated the present state of confusion. Just a few example

3049:

But the best first line towards improvement is avoiding certain comments that are known to be especially dangerous.These are the expected--any reference to age, or race, or nationality, or sex, or religion; or using words some people thing are taboo. Reflections on people's education are tricky--much

3045:

Anything can upset people, especially if it's connected with rejecting their work. There is no intervention, however well meant and however careful, that is truly safe--I've had people upset with approaches that essentially amount to , "let me help you make a better article"--especially with autobio,

2996:

Kudpung refers to insult expressed in polite terms. We need to recognize this as improper also--NPA means no personal attacks, not merely no personal attacks using conventional words of insult. When terms normally considered insulting are used, it aggravates the situation; when terms often used to

2450:

first of all, I would never say that everything in these sections was good, but you deleted the entire sections, the good and bad indiscriminately. (What I consider bad is analogies that are not documented or obvious, and of uses in non-notable works or unimportant contexts.) So are you telling me

1125:

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project,

10368:

Personally, I have come to realize that WP:N is a guideline whose entire meaning depends on the way in which we choose to interpret it. In particular, the GNG was conceived in a simpler time when we thought there was a clear distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Most actual contested

10203:

I understand a film can not qualify for CSD, or a book or a school. It seems this area is grey because it is not about a film but instead the concept of a film. I don't see what the author can do in seven days that will change the fact the film is said to be scheduled for release in 2014. It seems a

8576:

for Russian journals that don't have an English edition (or an "official" English title on their homepage or cover or anything like that). I'm not really sure how to answer this and your input would be appreciated. The editor (Solus Ipse) had translated the titles themselves and I somehow think that

8502:

In the other direction, like the earlier article, it is insufficiently detailed. The service consists of a complex of components that needs fuller description--such as geographic and chronological scope. There is no information about financial results, or market share or penetrance. And it is usual

7965:

in getting to say what can appropriately be said within our limits; it's not just risk management, but in a more positive sense effective working. Third, It helps to remind people that Commons is open to good photographs with a free license, & does not require immediate use in an article. &

7956:

I'm working on an essay: What is promotionalism. I do want to collect what I've said at various places. And I'm also thinking of a group like the Article Rescue Squadron, which I am tentatively naming Wikiproject Promotionalism Removal Unit. But I am concerned with the ideologues as much as the PR

7690:

for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same

7510:

Two years ago our school relocated to a new campus. We are a government school located in Brunei (SE Asia). As the person in charge of IT and all things online at our school I temporarily created a new wiki page for our new campus - a new name and location etc. - Shortly after this it was deleted by

6819:

seems reasonable--just go ahead. I will look at some of the more extensive articles and do some trimming. (and some splitting--they include the bios of the Directors of the various institutes, but these people are sufficiently notable that they should be covered separately). I suggest you copy this

6643:

The point is that this article is a textbook BLP1E, and Geo Swan has gotten flak specifically for having this type of article in userspace and in mainspace; regardless of whether it belongs in userspace or not, I'm not going to enable someone to restore an article when I would immediately send it to

6452:

Words like "substantial" in substantial coverage are not sharply true or false, and the interpretation depends on the circumstances. In fields or geographic areas where the press coverage of everyone of any degree of notability is extensive, it's reasonable to look for more substance than in those

6306:

My solution is entirely orthoodox: to enforce high standards on articles. There are multiple ways of going about it, and the total independence of every individual editor here ensures that everything anyone thinks a good idea will go on simultaneously. I have no way of imposing higher standards on

5911:

cycle; clear fixed subject-based inclusion criteria to decrease conflict over deletion by providing a clear basis for quickly deleting or keeping articles; definitively resolving conflict disputes with wide attention as we definitively resolve inclusion disputes--long AfDs are often really debates

5811:

What I found was there were a lot of cruddy advert articles with no sources, yet sources were available. The articles technically could be made appropriate for Knowledge, but in practice it's unlikely anyone will make the effort. It's more likely to create a headache for everyone edit-warring with a

5313:

Sanitizing is a tough one to enforce, as it isn't always obvious. We all have different thresholds for what is acceptable without references, for example. I'm not a fan of paid editing, but part of my concern is the perception of non-admins, who are more important than all the admins combined when

5147:

I don't see they understand about usernames, so I tried to explain it to them--on the articvle talk p, & their individual ones also. There is currently no usable sources for notability in the article, but given the very distinguished sponsorship, it needs a further search. I'll look at it again

5000:

Where the GNG is used here appropriately , is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the

4996:

For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of

4290:

I am willing to do at least one batch, and I think I understand how to do it from the wikipage. But perhaps I need to know something that isn't obvious, so I am emailing you. I wish you hadn't tried to summarize things using graphics, but that doesn't affect the ability to do the rating, which works

3961:

But I think my best assistance I can offer is helping to work out a quality assurance protocol for NPPs or similar roles without adding extra burocracy to Wiki. If you want to change ideas/thought with you and/or a group of people that think about quality assurance for Wiki just contact me directly

3941:

Maybe just to clarify my suggestions - in regards to the 'hidden' speedy-deltion' template: I used this term as I envisioned something similar as the 'hidden catagories': not anything to be done in secrecy and/or to avoid ir being visable; but as a means to 'tag' them by the aNPPer: he/she would tag

3890:

There have been considerable discussions about how to do this, and , like your suggestion , most of the suggestions have been in the direction of requiring some qualification for NPP. Ideally, this would be without adding any additional bureaucracy to the already over-bureaucratic system. It is not

3846:

What I envision is that in stead of placing the 'real' Speedy Deletion template on the page with all the consequences (a message on the Talk page of the contributer, a huge text at the top of the nominated article etc) it would just be visable to more experienced NPPers: they would then check if the

3770:

I do appreciate that DGG is not the nicest job in the world; but I do think that a DGGer should be very aware about 'new users' (I'm not in that catagory: but as he doesn't seem to do much research when he nominates a SD - other then on articles about persons to check if they had a TV show on top of

3766:

I do refer to the 5 pillars of Wiki, and especially Assume Good Faith: and also with DFA I do assume that he is just doing his best but if he truly thinks that his role as NPPer is the same as a teacher who rips up a paper made by one of his students because it is crap I really don't think he is fit

3707:. This sale was one of the additional reasons why both RBS as well as Fortis collapsed at the beginning of the Banking problems - leading to the current economic downturn in the US and Europe. Although DFA did remove the SDN when I started a discussion with him I do have problems with his attitude. 3467:

I suspect there will not be complete agreement; but since RS is a guideline explaining the details of the fundamental policy WP:V, the practical course will be to indicate the accepted range of variation rather than try to find an actual single wording--attempts at that are usually either vague, or

3154:

P.S. Thank you for electing to contribute your observations to the article talk page. I intend to fashion a rather in depth and carefully considered response to your observations as I believe it will be productive. However, due to time limitations and a personal desire to step back from this issue

3027:

One of the saddest aspects gained by a reputation of of being unpleasant is that it has deterred some people from wanting to submit articles for promotion to quality status. It's already driven most people away from wanting to help the project through promotion to the use of a set

3017:

I think the missing link here is not so much NPA as "don't needlessly disrupt Knowledge". What is a personal attack may very well depend on the intention of the writer, and his expectation of how the recipient will understand it. Thus, if we assume good faith, lots of things can be excused as having

2889:

Very eloquently put Scott. I concur with you both. Why the site tolerates it is an enigma to me too. But it does. That said, some of the worst insults do not need the use of expletives to be gravely insulting and demeaning - but in the current investigations, that aspect of PA and

2495:

If you have a moment, could you perhaps have a lok at this article? There are a few small problems here. There's a list of issues "sourced" to Amazon.com. There's also an extensive "reception" section with some cherry-picked quotes. And some editors (see talk) vehemently oppose inclusion of links to

2458:

sufficient for the item to be significant in the work, not only if it is the primary theme or influence of it. But below even being important, even the little details are significant, for they are what show the cultural influence of a prior work , or natural or human-made object, or theme. This is

2072:

I am getting the new Huggle test ready today, and I was wondering... some of the short versions have a link to the diff, while others do not. It might be interesting to test overall whether referring to the diff or pagename is better. Do you mind if I standardize them, and if I do, would rather they

1636:

of course we should keep them--but we should rewrite them with modern sources added--just as you did. That one of these encyclopedias has an article is considered not just as an indication, but a definitive proof of notability , because we include everything in other general encyclopedias. It's just

1380:

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks

1228:

Yes, I consider the introduction of this feature a potential disaster. I expect to see the number of incoming editors fall precipitously even below its present unsatisfactory level, as soon as it is implemented, and possibly not recover even after the trial has stopped. The attraction of being able

10045:

As for whether the company is actually notable, the community will decide. In practice, based on experience here, I think it will probably depend upon both the sourcing and on the importance of the games. After all, what makes a company notable except producing notable products? Authors are notable

10041:

be notable--even if the article itself does not make much of a case for it-- should not be judged by an individual admin, but by the community. The only articles that an admin can delete via speedy are the ones that unquestionably can not possibly be considered to belong in an encyclopedia. In the

8255:

I am undecided about that we should do in such matters in general. There can be no fixed boundaries for this, as it is not quantifiable. It has to be by the general judgment of the people who care here, which in practice gives great weight to the opposite extremes of sensationalism and snobbery. My

8236:

I responded there with a question that is only partly rhetorical as it's really not clear to me what you're suggesting we do to decide such matters. You seem to be proposing that we restrict comment to editors who have some specific power of discernment but what does this mean in practise? Please

7916:

But ethics is just an operational in-the-weeds piece of helping companies inform the world about topics they have a vested interest in through Knowledge. I want companies to stop seeing Knowledge as a liability and start seeing it as an asset. Knowledge isn't just a place where an angry customer or

7837:

Oops, forget about my email. I have your email address and submitted it to the reporter. I agree with your assessment above. I'm using the term "ethical Knowledge engagement," because "paid editing" entails writing the entire article, instead of using a collaborative process. On the other hand, for

6438:

But both of us are of the opinion that some degree of consideration for the essential parts of WP:Before is part of WP:Deletion Policy. We've both been here long enough not to judge an article's possibilities on the basis of what is in the present version, and we both define "sourceable" as meaning

6434:

I decide on the merits of an article by my own judgment. I then look at what other people said, to see if there is an argument that might convince me otherwise. Similarly, sometimes people who in a particular case think as I do use similar arguments as mine. (And why ever would I give an argument

6380:

Hi DGG. I'm going to try to make it to your session at Wikimania. If Jimmy sticks around after the plenary session and isn't barraged I might see if I can get his feedback on what a paid editor would need to do to not just be tolerated, but seen as an asset to Knowledge. The unconference would be a

6349:

For years I was an expert among marketing professionals on Knowledge. I did webinars, spoke at local events, consulted people routinely (for free), built a reputation (not intentionally) as the Knowledge guy, when in fact I had only written a hand full of articles and knew very little. Now I am 10x

6339:

Thanks DGG. In any hot-button issue those with the most extreme points of view are most vocal, so I'm glad I actively probed you for something more middled. I think this is similar to how I think of it. Just like any media, Knowledge has content needs and we need to learn how to fulfill those needs

6318:

But open editing and professional editing may be inherently incompatible. I have increasing doubts whether anyone in the PR profession can adjust to our manner of writing, and the discussions on and off wiki reinforce them daily. If I continue in the direction I am thinking, and others come to see

6253:

That prevailing wisdom is exactly what I am disagreeing with. I think it produces very low quality barely possible articles. Letting them edit directly produces either acceptable articles if somebody helps them, or rejected articles from which they might learn something. I am faced with two choice:

6151:

Someone at AfC was actually commenting their standards were too high, leading to a huge backlog, when the point is merely to publish articles that would survive an AfD. They also commented that 90% of submissions are never published, suggesting that blocking articles from creation was their mission

5987:

A much less direct one but I think the most important quantitatively in terms of the ultimate amount of improvement per effort expended, is the need to continue to attract new editors and get them involved. This requires both not discouraging them by rejecting their work, and not discouraging them

5855:

I'm guessing it's one of those things different editors have different opinions on. I'm not sure what mine is. I would also like to discourage blatant advert and not have to police thousands of articles on barely notable organizations. However, if the COI editor leaves it alone after we stub it, it

5704:

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this article? Some editors are trying to insert what I think is unsourced and unwarranted assertions, but perhaps I'm wrong. The journal is also included in many databases that, I think, would not include it if it weren't peer-reviewed, although I admit that the

5292:

editor using their prestige to influence the acceptance of content, and no editor who has prestige can avoid that. Therefore all paid editing by experienced people here is dangerous: the only safe way to use our skills is to teach the general public. I will no longer help paid editors with articles

5077:

a very useful project--it makes sense to have both lists, & I will add to the WP list as I see them, I shall check them both; because these can be considered potentially derogatory listings, they must have good references. It may be necessary to qualify the statements in some cases.

4948:

on which your comment that the "most troublesome tag-related problem is edit warring over NPOV tags" directly bears. Your input there might turn the trick like it did at EA. (And, BTW, I hope that I did not misattribute the idea that professors are inherently notable to you. If I did, I apologize.)

3871:

I hope I made my idea/proposal clear enough for you to understand: if not, I'd be happy to work it out in detail and then send it to you. But such a worked-out explination of the process would come in the form of a Word/OpenOffice document with embedded flow-charts. But if you would like to receive

3863:

finding its way to the Encyclopedia while we prevent damages due to over-active (or the opposite: far to easy) NPPers that still need to find their way in analysing new articles in a corect and consistent way. It does ask a bit from the experienced NPPers as they will have to take a potential NPPer

3736:

According to himself he hardly ever uses the SDN process, but when you look at his contributions many SDN's can be seen. And his Talk page only consists of SDN comments (there aren't that many on his Talk page as he deleted older/completed discussion threads on his Talk page. (and worse: he removes

3056:

The excuse of intellectual brilliance does not apply here: this is a communal setting, though some people may not at first realize that. Even the best of contributors, who can not or will not avoid offending other contributors will need to find a setting where they can work without doing harm. Even

3046:

where people tend to think they have written the obviously perfect article. Whatever people take offense with, I apologize for, and apology helps, if perceived as sincere, and if it's more than "I'm sorry it had a bad effect on you" but rather along the lines of "I made an error, and I will fix it."

3000:

There's even more serious aspect: when experienced people in a group can get away with behavior newcomers can not, it implies an hierarchy, a non-welcoming attitude. a sense of exclusiveness. It's a collective version of OWNERSHIP: the longer you're here, the more you own the encyclopedia. If we do

2728:

As for deletion by request of the author of the article, although Knowledge contributions are licensed irrevocably, sometime people change their mind, and it is good practice to show understanding.. Very often though it makes sense, and we don't want to embarrass people by a public discussion.

2654:

True, true... I too have spent many years on the editorial boards of several scholarly journals but have mixed feelings about open access. Until we can find free money to pay the printer, journals will not be free to readers. In an ideal world -- well, in an ideal world, there would be world peace,

2178:

Ah, we seem to have been in total agreement after all. I can't understand why anyone would want to drag this peren issue up again, especially so soon after the last one floundered. There is better work to be done than flushing out thousands of high school articles for deletion or even arguing about

1557:

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes

1395:

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I,in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a

1360:

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively

1232:

Sometimes a cause is lost. I opposed the use of BLP Prod, but it was adopted, and my experiences at prod patrol indicate it has had at most a trivial beneficial effect, as everything it properly deletes would and would have been deleted anyway. and a considerable negative one, as it leads to many

9560:

I know you didn't think it was necessary, but I did agree to it and will comply fully. In one month, I will be at 3 months and will have fulfilled my obligation, assuming my own criteria is met, that two admins sign off at that time (I would ask you and Boing! since you've been involved.) I have

9512:

I have occasionally checked a new admins deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only

9482:

I did want to quibble with one observation you made; I'll do it here because no one seems to expand on your thought, so I don't see much need to insert it into the thread. Plus I'll use it as a point of departure to make another point, which I may add to the thread, after I've finished reading it.

8894:

Indeed. I find analogies with traditional publishing very effective here. Someone in my position is only a "paid" editor in comparison to those that contribute for free. In working with professional journalists, we would both be paid. It's largely a perception problem that my work is comparable to

8849:

I therefore think it necessary to highlight this at the very start--especially because people with outside experience expect some degree of stability in large organizations, which they will not find here. It's regrettable having to start off with a warning that nothing you do will necessarily keep

8274:

There seem to be lots of articles about political campaigns, elections and demonstrations - what is currently excluded? I would like to see much of that content excluded or constrained as, by its nature, it tends to be too provisional. There not much point in covering a campaign in a speculative

7942:

Maybe I am asking a lot of you, but if you were ever interested in doing a blog post or Q&A style article addressing the marketing community, I would be happy to set that up as well. From my perspective we should be listening to the community more, but the volunteer editorial community doesn't

7015:

The one I did prod was an ambassador to Uganda and was a career civil servant. I highly respect DGG's opinions and have many written down as reference. However, deProdding with the edit summary saying "Ambassadors are notable" is misleading. Ambassadors are not automatically notable, especially

6712:

I think it goes without saying that most of the time admins will decide the same: if it were otherwise, we'd have immensely more conflict than now. There will also be a grey zone where doing a particular thing, is not clearly right or wrong. We say doubtful matters should involve the community,

5720:

A Duke University Press humanities journal of extremely high reputation, from the most important US publisher of such journals. As it contains invited manuscripts only, it does not do peer review of submissions. I do not know to what degree the invited material is reviewed and edited--I imagine by

5365:

I would agree with "No admin can be a paid editor" in theory, but then it would just happen without disclosure. Really, an admin shouldn't, even if a non-admin does. Pick one, a paycheck or the mop. And while you and I will look down on admins taking money, the average editor would only see the

4992:

Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where

4194:

he's now been unblocked by another ed., with essentially unanimous agreement; it now remains to deal with the admin doing the block. I am a little puzzled, because much though I disagree with that admin both in detail and general approach to Knowledge, this is much weirder on several levels than

3949:

Anyway: I do fully understand that we do need NPPs, but we also need to make sure NPPs work according to a high standard: preventing good articles to be marked as SD candidates and at the same time preventing bad articles to be passed as checked. Even when an article 'only' being marked for SD (or

2720:

The rule for speedy is that the article will be deleted in the subject shows no indication of importance of significance, which I think of as meaning that nobody in good faith who understood the purpose of Knowledge would think there should be an article. Notability is more than this. Any subject

2685:

and declined it as the subject looked notable at a cursory glance. A7 makes no mention of notability and I don't understand why. Are we to ignore notability if the other conditions of A7 are met? I may be overlooking something basic, but I don't see the utility in deleting aticles about notable

2632:

Yes, that is what most journals do: the TOCs at least are readable, and there is a sample issue or volume available free. A great many, including all or most of the journal backfiles at JSTOR, have abstracts free also. A very few don't even let you see the TOC, which is f rather silly--free TOCs

2465:

Finally, the wholesale elimination of the dozens of sections , some of them from major articles, in the course of a few days, done without discussion--and especially the reverts when people restored them-- were unconstructive. Even from your point of view, indiscriminate over-hasty zeal diminishes

2341:

the case, and the problem is only in deciding which universities it applies to. However, not everyone working on these articles agrees with me, including some of my most trusted friends here, so I am not sure "always" would be the consensus position at this time. My argument is similar to that on

1591:

What we ought to be doing is completely rewriting all the old article content taken from all the pre-1923 PD sources--the old Brittanica and Catholic Ency and Jewish Ency the worst; the old DNB is a little better, depending on when the article was written. The tone is generally unsuitable and

1342:

Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a

1236:

Sometimes opposition can be effective, as with patrolled changes. I certainly opposed it, and when it became clear it would be adopted supported those who successfully limited it to a trial and to a limited range of articles. The community , upon seeing among other things that those using it did

10380:

You may think I am wrong in either my general approach to WP or to this specific matter. Both are possible. As for the general approach, in don't run the encyclopedia ; as for the specifics, I', far from infallible, and everyone has their own version of reasonable and what common sense requires.

9533:

I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly

8924:

Regarding experience, I think the community should be able to expect a professional-quality engagement and professional-quality content from companies, the same way journalists expect professionalism. I'm working on getting to that level that I think should be routine. Journalists don't typically

8371:

These articles have either NO references or very few. Much has gone completely unreferenced for YEARS. It looks like pure copyvio almost throughout the articles. Though tags have been placed on them, the tags are simply updated so they do not look as if the articles have been unreference for as

7718:

editing. The structural problem with yours is that you need early on to explain that there is a safe universally accepted way as specified at COI--asking for article creation or proposing a draft in userspace, and a less safe not universally accepted way, direct editing, which is what much of

6669:

the more general issue, that we may not use our authority to delete under the speedy criteria or after an explicit consensus, to delete otherwise, remains. I admit I have violated it on rare occasions, in the spirit of IAR. But using IAR for a single-handed deletion is a very dangerous thing, and

6312:

You are asking me what way I would recommend to you or marketing professionals generally? I give you the same advice I have always given: to learn to write articles that will be considered unquestionable acceptable. There may be no agreement on the boundary of what is just barely acceptable, but

6098:

We need to re-evaluate how we do things there at afc. the standards for article approval seem to be very low. I myself would never approve an article of much lower quality than I would write myself, but many people accept articles that are at best barely possible. And it is much more difficult to

5954:

Thanks DGG. I'm trying to digest this. I think what you're saying is to just fix the articles instead of focus on the bureaucracy. So instead of focusing so much on the AfD process, maybe I should just improve the article. Am I on the mark there? I sort of wanted to make sure I was doing it right

5906:

The best way to focus attention on improving weak and outdated articles (and about 90% of our content has become outdated) is to avoid focusing energy on valueless activities here. Every trivial dispute that escalates because of the hostile nature of internet exchanges is harmful--harmful not

5892:

The world has realized that it is so desirable to have an article at Knowledge, that there is no possible way we can avoid having to police not just thousands, but quite literally millions of weak articles. If we throw out the weak existing ones to avoid checking them, we'll be dealing with the

5874:

There is nothing that a person may not want to write about, and a good predictor of what someone might be interested in is that someone else is interested also. Therefore every weak article are not just capable of improvement, but likely to be improved, and most articles get improved eventually.

4981:

professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable. Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks

4672:

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72

4663:

Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage

3902:

Most of the discussions are about having the equivalent of a special user right for marking Patrolled. For examp[le, a fairly restrictive condition might be Auto[patrolled status; a less restrictive one, 3 months and 1000 edits. Expdrience has shown that at the very least a full month and several

3896:

We do not necessarily need a hidden speedy template nor would I advocate one: first, many improperly tagged articles get untagged by people simply noticing them--the cultural change to always check the edit page would not be easy, especially to newcomers (most inexperienced readers are not even

3867:

At the same time it might also put people off volunteering for the role: I have people in mind that don't want any monitoring from an experienced user because they know of themselves that their opinion is right in the first place - and that their rating if an aricle is Wiki-worthy or not is rule.

2929:

While we wait for their inevitable degeneration, we should try to maintain an even temper, although that is not always possible or even desirable. After Helena Bonham Carter, the great-granddaughter of Herbert Asquith, complained that for all her advantages and beauty directors would not hire her

2872:

Sorry, I've not made myself clear (and foolishly appeared to insult Americans). The style here is certainly British (and the whole "cunt is not sexist in Britain" meme is slight of hand, because although not generally used to refer to women in the UK, it is not a term anyone would use in any open

2820:

I saw it myself a little earlier this evening. KW seems to be doing his utmost to show himself in as bad a light as possible. It's perfectly consistent with his general behavior there that he didn't inform me. As far as I am concerned, I don't think what he said about me is significant enough to

1459:

it depends , as always, on references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Almost always all material about them is on the internet in the form of blogs of

1257:

Opinion needed: as you've been involved in the messy Avaya MfD's, do you think there's a better way to handle them? Like freezing the similar MfD's and link them to one general? I don't know. I'm just guessing, OR is the matter that each product needs to be viewed separately to see its individual

1224:

I see your comment there and I agree with you, and will say as much, but I am also going to say that I do not think the WMF can or should prevent the community from doing something like this. I've consistently opposed their interference in our content beyond the minimum legal necessities, and

1197:

Almost everyone who commented on it seems to think that the Article Wizard can and should be improved. There were also repeated concerns about making sure that the Articles for Creation process gets more attention so it does not become clogged and proposed articles get the improvements they need.

10364:

The fictional characters article you mentioned has substantial real world commentary. The requirement, in any case, applies to the overall coverage of the work of fiction within Knowledge--how the overall coverage gets divided up is a matter not of principle, but convenience. As for the twitter

7526:

This was back in 2009. The best way to deal with this is to move the old article, update it, and give a cross reference, all of which I can do. . But I cannot do this unless I have some actual information . The article said merely "Scheduled to open in March 2009, PTEM will accommodate staff and

7314:

is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be

6661:

Looking at a later comment on your talk p., it appears there was a misunderstanding. Geo asked you to at least mail it to him, & he (and I) thought you were refusing to do that also. But you explained you had not noticed that part, & would mail it. I think that resolves the immediate

6462:

I see you say you follow WP:BEFORE--I am glad you accept that principle, and urge you to say explicitly what you have or have not searched, and what options you have considered. If I nominate or comment on an article & think that while merging or redirection might seem plausible they should

4432:

I really appreciate that you let me know, and I'll keep in touch with what you do. Remember that part of the job is to not miss the really major problems. Many promotional articles are in fact copyvios, and that's always a sound reason for deletion. A page marked as patrolled without sufficient

3945:

Just as an afterthought you mention another important issue: people who don't want to be monitoe. I see often that there are people who claim/think that because WP is an open encyclopedia that also means that there are no rules (or to be more precise: there are no rules for them, while there are

3523:

have such editors and give them authority is a rather complicated question & I'm going to incorporate some material I wrote for Foundation-L about this problem. (My view, briefly, is that we should not do so, but rather go as far as we can the way we have been working. There is a need for an

2992:

I was at first surprised at our emphasis on the wording: I now appreciate it as a good opportunity for discussing bad language. I agree with Scott that the way "cunt" is used in the quote above shows that the use is normally considered offensive in the UK, and that this was newsworthy as an

2336:

certainly notable, as is generally the case for full professors at a leading world-famous research university like NYU (I used the word "generally," which I think vague enough to accommodate the various views: there is considerable disagreement about whether it is "always the case,", ""almost

1473:

what they've done is important. I do not, but I can recognize that a person might think so in good faith. Myself, I might or might not have A7'd. Given that I know I have a prejudice against such careers, I might have passed on it & let some other admin decide. In any case, I have a standard

10077:

I really appreciate taking the time to give me such a complete response. I particularly take you point about judgement being reserved for the community. There are bits of nuance of editing practice that I'm only going to pick up by making mistakes, and I now have a much better idea where this

9508:

You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy

8018:

Of course they would prefer entries that meet their immediate needs; such is the nature of capitalism, It is our obligation to do the work to see they can not get what they would prefer when it conflicts with the principle of providing encyclopedic information. Everything you say leads to the

7786:

may be covering a report I'm publishing next week. The thesis of the report is that ethical Knowledge engagement by companies is a form of content marketing. Just like any independent news and information source, Knowledge has content needs. Companies can achieve mutual benefit by transparently

6046:

To tell you the truth COI and company articles is what interests me the most, but after going through AfCs and request edits for just one day, the current state of affairs just makes me feel bitter and angry. To see someone submit a request edit, after overhauling their entire article, removing

5925:

there is nothing at Knowledge that cannot be improved by wider participation of increasing numbers of new editors. We will get that by making it easier to edit and easier to start articles. People who have been here for a while lose the initial excitement at being personally able to affect the

5737:

But what do you think of the remark "It is thus a closed, in-house journal. The interests and networks of the editorial board determine what ends up in the issue." that several editors insist on including? That sounds rather negative to me, but each time that I remove it, somebody puts it back.

3518:

OK, I will try this weekend. But "verifiability" is a relatively straightforward concept: it means the material in the article must be able to be shown accurate by published sources. We have no way of judging what is really true , because we have no research capability, and few editors with the

3378:

of course I am willing to do it, and you may use my wikiname and my real name however you please, though if others are not giving their name likewise, I am sure you will do so in such a way as not to give my comments any greater implied emphasis. I should like to speak with you first about your

2724:

Personally, I think we should never have ever adopted the word "notability". It operationally has a meaning peculiar to us, what is called a "term of art", meaning only the question whether there should be a separate Knowledge article; I think we should be deciding how much coverage to give the

2434:

The ones I chainsawed were full of things like " has an episode , an obvious shout-out", which is original research, or " mentioned this in very faint passing". I fail to see how one line of throwaway dialogue in a 22-minute episode warrants a relevant mention. Something more obvious, like "The

2161:

I think I've been there. There's such a simple rule to follow: high schools yes, others no, that I can't see why anyone would bother except those who really want to argue the details of sourcing for 50,000 individual articles. I can see Knowledge as a good place for those who like to argue, and

1611:

I don't have enough information to judge your assessment of the reliability of those old 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias, but since I know that you are a librarian, I will defer to your expertise. That being said, I think that we should keep articles referenced only to those sources,

10294:

In the past, information of characters has tended to be eliminated by slow attrition if not kept separately. If this were to change, I would not support most separate character articles, though I would support their content. One of the problems with Knowledge is that we have no way of making a

10000:

I just proposed my first two speedy deletions this evening and I'm afraid I may have misunderstood the criteria. I had thought that notability of created works did not necessarily confer notability on the company that created them, and that since there didn't appear to be any reliable sources

9222:

For a book on the law system of a very small European nation, I would not expect to find much in WorldCat. And it fact, it seems the only comprehensive substantial English language book on the general subject listed there. Books dealing with particular branches, have 19, 6, 2, and 1 copies in

8424:

Thank you for commenting there. I did want to correct the idea that I was advocating using old sources and chronicles exclusively. I am well aware of the problems inherent in using those sources. I do think they should be mentioned within the format you recommended as does Norman F. Cantor,

8006:

My opinions are still forming/changing as I become more experienced and based on what I observe, but I have observed that ethical community collaboration takes immense patience, extra work and lower "results" from the sense that most companies would prefer bias entries, which they could obtain

2932:

Not sure if this adds anything to any discussions, but thought it noteworthy when I saw it this morning. Perhaps it does tend to illustrate that it's not a misogynistically-offensive term over here (UK), just a stronger version of "stupid cow", ie rudeness applied exclusively to a female; male

1942:

I am reaching out for help to revive the article that I wrote some time ago about an educational website - Novelguide.com. As of today, there are 549 articles here on wikipedia that site this website for its content. I used the google search box under the wikipedia search results to find this

1316:

Yes, I saw that one--in fact, I would have listed it for deletion except that I saw you had worked on it. It's large enough that it might be notable, but whether I feel like doing the work for an article like that depends upon the factors of how important the company is & my opinion of the

9757:

DGG, you asked for my thoughts on what we should do next. My personal view before the sockpuppeting came to light was that the article was insufficiently encyclopedic for a standalone article based on the subject, content and lack of sourcing. I'm not at all opposed to a merge of all of these

7810:

of any type--the problems are very similar), A reputable publisher knows how to accomplish this: it uses the company's PR as one source, in the light of other sources, and as filtered through the critical knowledge of experienced and independent editors, and rewriting it so it matches the

4216:

Yes all very odd. And the endless comments about "deceit" on the ANI have merely served to confirm beyond any possible doubt that there is a highly personal aspect to all of this. The individual in question has obviously never heard, or at least heeded, the phrase "when you're in a hole, stop

4199:

deprod reason is acceptable; block for the reason being false when it was both technically correct and totally justified; continuing lack of understanding that it was wrong; intention of the admin to continue to pursue the grievance against the editor; continuing violation of NPA even in the

3106:

the word came up because the use of it has been a prominent example in the manifold recent discussions. To say we should not insult other people by using the word does not mean we should avoid using it frankly when the word itself (or the subject) is the matter being discussed. Accusations of

2930:

because she was not "trendily working class", an exasperated Kathy Burke found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear. "As a lifelong member of the non-pretty working classes," she told Time Out, "I would like to say to Helena Bonham Carter: shut up you stupid cunt."

8736:

Your name is being thrown about on this page, but in positive way. Perhaps it is time to join us? It is morphing quite a bit, but there are some good ideas being thrown around, and the essay has undergone a lot of changes, and more is yet to happen. Some of your insight would be helpful.

6548:

very nice for general purposes, and will certainly improve accuracy if inexperienced users get this by default. For quickly scanning to pick up problems, I find it unusable. The old format works very well for me when I use it for that purpose, & I hope we can figure out how to maintain

5763:

I know of no journal where "the interests and networks of the editorial board " or even just the editor in chief do not in considerable part determine the contents. The problem is that saying this so directly can easily be misinterpreted by those who have an overly simplistic view of the

7816:

There are two difficulties: one is that the content the company wants to contribute only has a partial overlap with what the reader needs. Readers do not want to hear why the company thinks it had good products, they want to hear facts about the products, including references to published

7739:

It was thrown together quickly this morning. If you are inclined, I would love to have your participation. I've asked only a few editors whom I know have different ideas about Knowledge in general, as to get a balanced approach to it. It is targeted for PR/Marketing people who are new to

6717:

matters are doubtful enough to involve the community? In the boundary zone, the decisions are necessarily going to vary from one individual to another. This is beneficial, not harmful. An admin might choose to do only the utterly obvious, but the other matters need to be dealt with also.

2019:

tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF

4150:: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too! 2851:

Perhaps it's better to avoid nationalities--to many Americans like myself the offensive style here is more like British pub speech, or more exactly, the constant back and forth of insult in British comedy sketches, rather than random use of occasional bad words that characterizes American

9490:

Having made my point, I'm not sure it belongs on the thread at this time, because my suggestion isn't going to help the problems that are being discussed at the moment, so maybe I'll think some more on it, and formalize a proposal later. Maybe after getting some thoughts from people like

8835:

Hi DGG. Especially seeing that I just invited Ocaasi, who is sort of the champion (I think) of the PSCOI, to chime in, I toned down the See Also. My rational is that if the essay is to focus on being something both sides of the aisle can agree on, we can only confidently say that there is

8478:

about a draft of the article I proposed. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the bandwidth at this time to help implement that changes and recommended I talk with you. Would you mind taking a look and if seen as appropriate, implement the changes into the current article? My draft can be found

5336:

and thus there is a problem for an admin who does paid editing at all--any of his work in the field will be under suspicion. As an arb said informally at a recent meeting, though probably an admin would not be demopped for doing paid editing, that admin would lose a lot of respect and

7790:

What bothers me about media coverage on the topic is the lack of voice from the editorial community and the reporter expressed an interest in doing a Q&A with a volunteer editor. I was wondering if you were interested. It seems up your alley, since the focus is on quality content.

1463:

but this case is simple with respect to notability: the deleted article on Green had no third party sources whatsoever. I doubt anyone who understands Knowledge would support it at an AfD unless better sources could be found. However, it was deleted via A7, and the criterion for A7 is

2318:

You know the guidelines better than anyone else I know when it comes to academics. Please take a looks when you can. I had just tagged for notability, original creator thinks it doesn't need it. Rather than debate, I would leave it in your experienced hands if you have the time.

9810:. Exactly one person, not even signed up to that WikiProject, volunteered to clean up, and xe then started hitting problems with, and had to waste a lot of time combatting, several administrators going on speedy deletion sprees. This wasn't exactly a productive move on our parts. 6009:

But what an individual should choose to do is affected by what the individual is best at, where the need is greatest. and what they enjoy doing. that last factor is perhaps the critical one, because we are all volunteers and will only be here if we get satisfaction from our work.

4973:

For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their

2824:

As for my position on NPA, it's been stated elsewhere: that people at a responsible public site behave like they do no longer amazes me; what continues to puzzle me is why the site tolerate them. Perhaps I have a responsibility to say this there, but people will see it here also.

4109:

session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on

3842:

As a follow-up on my remarks I made about DFA: would it be a good idea if new NPPs would first become an 'assistant NPP' where he rates an article and if he thinks it is indeed a candidate for SpeedyDeletion that he uses a hidden version of the template Speedy Deletion Request.

2466:

the value of what you were doing. You use the word "chainsawed." It was an accurate description, but perhaps you didn't mean to use it, for that word has the implications of vandalism. Had you instead taken out the worst of the junk, it would have been a positive contribution.

7016:

where the majority of ambassadors for the U.S are political appointments who donated the most to a campaign. I have no problem with stating in the edit summary that you believe this person is notable, but don't say "Ambassadors are notable" as it sounds like Knowledge policy.

8687:

of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give

6763:

the articles there certainly still need work: classic promotional institutional pages, in many cases, (much probably copied, and needs ref to the sources, though it US-PD) and overly brief summaries in others. Perhaps if its just the two of us we could simply divide them up.

6442:

Northamerica similarly, though he & I share the same view only sometimes, not all that often, and I have a good deal less experience and knowledge of his level of working. When multiple people say the same thing, they might even do so because it is the obviously correct

3593:

I agree with you about requiring more human communication. If you want to talk about actually making that happen, then let's talk. But in the meantime we're trying to slowly but surely improve those related notifications, and your feedback on the work so far would be welcome

1203: 3630:

articles without more people. We can't get more people unless we fix our processes of working with articles. We can't stop to fix our processes when there are so many urgently needed specific actions such as the flood of promotionalism. So I try to work by turns everywhere.

3319:, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students. 8300:

am thinking about the quite successful campaigns to remove articles related to Gitmo, and also articles about small splinter parties, left and right--not of trivial events in political campaigns, where I more or less agree with you about the tendency for overemphasis.

7762:

I followed a very similar vein as DGG describes above in my contributions to the essay, but I like his language more "universally acceptable." I could see that in the title somehow: "Universally acceptable marketing & public relations behavior on Knowledge (too long).

7206: 6996:

looking for sources in the country the person is accredited to as well as that which he comes from. In the past we've made the distinction between ambassadors who are notable, and consuls, who are not usually. As always, the community will either agree with me, or not.

1130:

Many editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their userpages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my userpage. While I can add anything at all I like to my userpage subject to

6644:

AFD. "If I did that, and the article stays in the same form, it will be very rapidly deleted, which is not what you desire" — and this article cannot help being in the form of a BLP1E unless Geo Swan find persistent coverage, of which I've heard nothing from him/her.

8256:

only real concern is that we seem to have a bias to including disgusting events, and excluding political ones--by own bias is just the opposite. I'd accept the disgusting if we could get the political. I'd accept any lower level, in fact, if we could get the political.

5451:

Hi DGG, I saw that my original note on your talk page was archived, so I'm adding this to make sure it doesn't get lost from your radar as there is clearly a lot of incoming requests on your page! This is the link to the latest correspondence, ready for your review.

1296:

paid editors, not just blanket forbidding them (since we can't even do that successfully anyway). I honestly don't get why Jimbo thinks that such involvement is now and has always been forbidden and everyone knows that and no one disagrees. I totally accept that

5293:

or approve it for them, because I would be using not only my skills, which is fair, but my prestige also. Rather, let them write as they see fit, and I shall comment as I see fit. As any teacher knows, while you cannot stop plagiarism, you can require quality.

4244:

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing

2841:

That, I think, is the nub of the whole arbcom case. We've managed to get some sort of American free-speech, citizen's-rights, ethos, which tolerates children being childish, and really has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Sadly, it is unlikely to

7539:

blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Any language will do. I will deal with inserting it correctly. I gather the old pictures are no longer applicable, so you will need to upload one or two new ones with a free license. And see

3504:"verifiability" is such an odd word that it could have no obvious connotation. However, it took me a long time to realise that, when people were saying "primary", "secondary" or "tertiary", they were meaning something quite unlike anything I had understood. 7534:

Please provide some information on the talk page of the old article. Include the web site, etc., so I can verify. You also should provide references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but

1178: 7957:

community. And remember that no one person can speak for the community, and we do not agree on the approach to this--we only go by formal guidelines to the extent we want to at the moment for each case separately, so everything here will always be erratic.

6780:

I would certainly be glad to help out. I looked through some of them and your right theres definately some work to be done. I also noticed there seemed to be some that weren't tagged yet. I was also wondering if you think it would be ok if I did a couple

6596: 9031:

Thank you for reviewing my recent article stub with Nouniquenames. I've been trying to understand what the difference is between 3rd party coverage, and press releases. Could you point me to the Knowledge guideline (if one exists) that explains this?

6793:

I would like to expand the title on the template to spell out Institutes of Health. Of course I would leave the existing one as a redirect. I have had a couple folks ask me what it meant already (along with WikiProject SIA and AAA) so it might help a

2162:

sometimes I'm one of them, but there are more interesting things to argue about--some of which even have significant consequences, and a few of which represent the highest goal of human understanding, helping development of one's ethical principles.

9767:

The sockpuppetting didn't really "come to light". It's been there all along. Tobias Conradi hasn't actually stopped editing in all these years, and a small number of administrators have been blocking him every so often. He's editing right now as

8019:

conclusion that promotionalism must be removed, I think in the end we will be able to do so only at the cost of abandoning the principle of anonymity. It is folly to think that we here now have constructed something that can not be improved upon.

10053:

If something indicates possible good-faith significance and you think it not notable, nominate it for prod if you think nobody is likely to disagree. If the prod is challenged, or if disagreement is likely, then AfD is the way to go. For this one,

5183:(don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, 3762:

After that point in time I also can be blamed for coming close to personal attack: although I do think that it must be clear that I'm exaggerating and being sarcastic; but I started to loose my patience and could hardly believe what I was reading.

9147:

It will be this weekend. I know I've said it before two or three times, but I'm feeling embarrassed enough to actually do it, instead of trying to learn something I haven't done before (last week, the new version of the New Pages list, this week,

4846:

plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a

10224:, but I think you will find it difficult to word one that will unambiguously apply and not give false positives. And let's avoid WP:BEANS. I don't see that we need worry that something like this would survive, because 7 days will get rid of it. 6943:,which seems to say that being an ambassador per se is not enough for notability. He was unPRODded after more content was added, don't know whether it's the person you're concerned with or not (current Thai ambassador to US I seem to remember). 1788:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

2139:

Hi David. I seem to recall that we may once have possibly been in disagreement over the notability of schools. Without prejudice to you opinion (and I can't really remember exactly what it was), there is a discussion taking place

7252:

An interesting question has been raised that you might be interested in. Since you have participated in similar discussions and arguably more experience in this particular policy question, you might have some insight that would be helpful.

6381:

good time to meet up. At some point much further down the line I would like to get some form of independent review/assessment on our McKinsey efforts from an uninvolved editor, just to make sure we've all done a great job serving the reader.

5721:

the editors themselves, rather than invited peers of the authors. Humanities journals have various variant of editorial control, and this is a not uncommon method . The proper term I think is "Peer review or the equivalent editorial control"

3338:

The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and

4389:

I took this very seriously, as I knew I was doing something extremely wrong. Knowing the only thing I could do was to just stop new page patrolling, as that seemed to be where the problem was diverting from. As I have read from some of your

5130:(NYSA) page with NYSA in their usernames seems like a problem. Note though, that i haven't looked closely enough to see if its good faith, bad result, or simply promotion. Also, if it's now good enough, feel free to take off my prod. TY. 4921: 3409:

I started a look at some policy and guideline pages, but through typical over editing (such pages are typically edited/developed due to some current event or other), the primary sources explanations seem a bit watered down and too vague.

8995:

BTW, something I learned from you was how policies and guidelines are just a North Star as it were, that rely on good judgement from impartial volunteers; how their interpretation can vary. I applied that principal in my volunteer work

7787:

offering content of value to the editorial community. The report shares statistical information from 2,500+ Knowledge articles on companies to gleam insights into Knowledge's content needs, so organizations can better align themselves.

6579:: it is written by the person who set up this "metatextbook" (see bottom of the huge linked page). So I don't think that it is really a review and certainly not independent. Perhaps too complicated for CSD... Should I take it to AfD? -- 4802:

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email

4702:

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

3953:

I'd be more then prepared to think along with you (as a group: not you as a person) how to build in checks and guarentees, but I don't have the time to become a NPPer myself: but I would be happy to help out in Q-control. I'm already a

3413:

If you wouldn't mind, would you a.) help me find any and all pages relating to primary sources, and b.) would you be willing to help write a stand alone guideline concerning them, to better help editors understand usage and so forth? -

3909:

as people with auto-confirmed who use that privilege improperly. When I became an administrator, it was for the stated primary reason of looking for deleted articles that could be rescued. We also already have a mentoring system,

9820:— a complete inability to work collboratively, and indeed even interact reasonably with, other people. So we show him out of the door mercilessly every time that that surfaces; but we don't necessarily obsess over his contributions. 9534:

work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Knowledge, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed.

3281: 1468:

notability, nor is it whether the article would be accepted into Knowledge, but some reasonable indication or claim of importance. The question is whether the claims there are such. I consider them borderline. The person certainly

10036:

The criteria for keeping an article at speedy are deliberately set to be very undemanding. It's an "indication of importance or significance", which is much less rigorous than WP:N. The idea behind this is that anything that might

4256:(FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an 8707:

curiously enough, and rather to my surprise, at the last training session we held in NYC (for a group of junior college instructors), many of the participants were of the opinion that the presence of the article feedback request

2435:

creator of cites as a primary influence" is fine on both Show Y and Show X's articles, as long as the claim is verified. But I just don't think we need every tangential little mention, especially in list form, which looks ugly.

2397:—and as I see you warned in your previous note on the same page. I think I endorse your viewpoint that an EduCap article could be created to address its controversies, but the treatment it is given here represents a clear case of 4409:

be taken seriously. With out new page patrollers, there would be havoc on here. (spam, hoaxs, etc.) If you believe that I have done one thing wrong, please do not hesitate to tell me, and to handle the situation appropriately.

7801:

Yes. ask the reporter to email me. I would personally very much like to see good content from companies; the problem is getting content that meets the needs of the readers, not the needs of the companies. (And it is not really

1637:

that they is essentially no subject whatsoever where additional knowledge, and very often more accurate knowledge, is not available--just as you found in the one you worked on. You're doing what we should all of us be doing.

7898:

These arguments are most relevant to major brands with reputations to protect, more community interest/activity and a legal department that understands risk management. These companies understand the need for ethical behavior

5752:

Sorry, just stumbling across this string. How about: "Article selections and other content choices are made by the editorial board." This reminds me of COI issues where bias content needs to be corrected rather than omitted.

4798:

to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

8007:

through less ethical participation. The survival of EthicalWiki will depend on ethics actually being the most viable route, which means I rely on the community to do a good job screening out poor ethics - an impossible job.

5834:

I would say that such articles, if the subject is notable, can just be stubbed to a sentence or a paragraph, with one or a few of the better references attached. Then it can be worked on from there, from scratch as it were.

2572:

No, that is not the case. Only sample issues can--at present, vol.4. If you see more than that, you are working within the domain of a college or library that has a subscription. I'll forward you a screen shot if necessary.

5287:

The actual danger from an admin is not article-writing but sanitizing; an admin who avoids editing an article can protect it in a preferred version, or chase away those who would change it.) Otherwise, the danger is from

6453:

fields and places which attract much less attention. (I'm not sure how far Uncle G and Northamerica agree with me on that--I seem to feel much more strongly in requiring full coverage in some subject areas than they do.)

2451:

you had examined every item there and found that there was nothing useable in them according to your standards? I don't think so, because you consistently cite the worst, and use it as the justification for everything.

1110: 4333: 10270:

What are differences between these two articles? Well, both were nominated as AFD, yet AFD nomination on Sam and Diane was withdrawn. What are values, including encyclopedic value, of both topics and their articles?

9856: 4172:

Apologies if you are already aware, but I though you would like to know that Colonel Warden is the victim of a highly unjustified and unreasonable indefinite block. There is a discussion about this on the ANI board:

1792:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

3858:

version of them. Although this might seem as a lot of extra work for the mentor of the NPP in training; it does provide us (the entire Knowledge community) a great service: well trained NPPers so that the amount of

8403:

I am making some comments on the general article. My interpretation of the writing is that if the material was plagiarized, it was plagiarized from some rather dull textbooks, and probably outdated ones at that.

4386:"I am giving you a two week ban, running through March 23, from new page patrol, from page moves without clear prior consensus, and from tagging articles for deletion except in cases of clear vandalism or copyvio." 2589:

I can get the ToCs from the link I gave, not only for Vol. 4 but for the others too. Except for Vol. 4, downloading costs money, but the ToCs are on the link. Let me go back and check them all. I'll be right back.

9852: 7592:

Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Knowledge Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

9739: 4499:

It seems to me there is an imbalance in the article - it's about BIHE yet a good half is about responding to the persecution about BIHE. And the content on the response is sufficient for it's own article. No?

4022:

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the

2462:

Third, with respect to documentation, that something is the main theme or important or occurs in a work can be sourced from the work itself. It's one of the standard exceptions for the use of primary sources.

9274:

I sort of realized that, but someone should have commented in print on this in the last 20 years. I have seen similar situations here quite dificult to handle, because we can not editorially comment. If one

6416:

that he found sources in the same amount of time that it took me to nominate the article for deletion. I said that I don't think those sources show notability and another editor agreed with me. So annoying.

4897:

nominate it for speedy, but left it for the community. They will either agree with me, or they won't, and that will decide the issue. While we're talking about it , have you any COI with this organization?

3956:

mentor on request" and was asked once to help a new author to find his way on Wiki - but there is not much demand for a voluntary mentor. I would however be prepared to be a mentor/help for a potential NPP.

3774:

Could you as (far more) experienced Wikipedian give him some good guidelines and tips: as said, I do assume that DGA handles in good faith: but the way he is working now is really not healthy. Thanks a lot,

9443: 6790:

I would like to add the project to the Joint projects list of WPUS. The articles are already covered by both projects so it might help them a little and slightly increase the visibility of the NIH project.

6198:

vast discussions on content of relatively little value. This works to make a short-term point, but it's not scalable were the process done en-masse. I've been somewhat duplicating the AfC process like this

3468:

do not actually have the claimed consensus, because different people go on to interpret it their own way regardless of what gets written. (yes, I propose that as a general approach to writing guidelines)

6670:

perhaps we should all stop doing it. Otherwise it is all too easy for someone to make a case that we are acting on our own prejudices and private interpretations, and perhaps sometimes they will be right.

8473:

article which currently lacks any citation or substantial information. I do some work for Bloomberg and don't want my conflict of interest to interfere with Wiki guidelines, so I have been in talks with

9196:

Do you think this can be salvaged? The article is written by an SPA and is horribly spammy, but that could be fixed if the book is notable. Worldcat shows only one library holding, but Dennis Campbell,

1685:

This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --

6291:

I would be interested in your opinion on the CREWE/paid editing/COI dynamic. I noticed I have a strong keep lean compared to others in the AfD discussion, which led to a couple being relisted. I guess

4993:

tenure usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does. Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.

4249:, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense. 8958:

In any case, if you do find any notable non-profits attempting to write an article with a COI, I'm particularly interested in doing some pro-bono work helping worthy non-profits that can't afford me.

7714:

I was planning something with a roughly similar intent : "What is Promotionalism" It should complement what your've been doing. I want to keep it separate, because my part refers to much more than

4260:

session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at

10290:

any of it. But from similar works I do know, I have observed that the understandable way of presenting the material is to discuss the characters, not just go scene by scene through each episode.)

1339: 3316: 9190: 8333: 4102:. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :). 9710:

Being created by a banned sockpuppet is essentially in the same class of things that supersede earlier discussions. If you want to go further, I suggest an/i rather than dr, but it's your choice.

8592:

There's a general rule here: if there is no common english title for a subject we use the one in the language of the subject. But in this case there I see there in fact is an English title.

2933:

equivalent probably "Stupid prick". (But I spend most of my life in a quiet village looking after an aged Mother, so am no expert on what's said in pubs, on buses or in workplaces at present!)

10257: 3332:

All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

7917:

special interest group weaponizes the site to attack companies they don't like; it's a free service to create credible corporate/executive/product profiles in the interest of free knowledge.

7364: 7179:& whether or not acceptable licensing permission is given is evidence of promotionalism sufficient for deletion. (As you can see, this sort of material is getting me rather frustrated.) 6597: 1082: 9125: 5453: 3729:

where he made above comment, and also came later with an explination why Kevin O'Leary is notable and Rijkman Groenink wouldn't be (Kevin O'Leary is also Shark in TV program Shark Tank (see

2852:

adolescents. When people work together, deliberate and repeated use of what others in the group clearly consider insult always has the implication that the others do not matter. Whether

9807: 9783: 7374:

article for deletion. We have previously worked together on improving the article so that it won't be deleted. Can you please let me know what I have done wrong and how can I improve it? --

5812:

poor COI advert spammer for an article of only minor value to Knowledge. Yet Knowledge policy is to keep articles if reliable sources exist rather than if they are likely to ever be used.

2238: 1086: 1074: 1066: 1035: 9726:

If you look at the DRV I raised and the discussion on the non-admin closer's talk page, he accepts that the AFD was closed incorrectly so I'd say that the AFD is irrelevant to this issue.

9691:

says "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations", so G5 doesn't apply after it survived

9255:

profile" -- surely there's something more recent. " -- in fact the firm goes to great lengths indeed to hide compensation, so these figures and citations had to be carefully sleuthed. :)

8480: 5581:

No problem - I appreciate that you have been keeping me posted. Yesterday I spent some time updating dead reference links since Stevens switched over to a new website. Thank you again.

1070: 8618:

to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks,

1552: 8789:. It is still undergoing a lot of changes, and there is a pretty wide variety of people looking at it, including at least one who COI edits himself, which I think adds some balance. 8730: 7943:

have an army of PR professionals giving them voice or an organized effort to educate marketing professionals. I would like to improve that when and how I can, like the article I did

1118: 9304: 5613:

Hi DGG -- Just wanted to check if you have a sense of when you may be able to review. I am getting pressed for an update and want to report back with the latest. Thank you again!

3519:

recognized professional standing to check submissions by academic standards. We therefore rely on outsiders to do that, in publications that have editorial supervision. Whether we "

2541:

and all articles can be downloaded for free. I added the link on the talk page, but not in the article itself. Check the link yourself and then, if you want, add it to the article.

2242: 10409: 10220:

it. There have been enough disputes over the application of NOT CRYSTAL to keep that criterion out of CSD territory. If you really want to argue for this, draw up a proposal for

7103: 7147: 7099: 7078: 3809:

While I was writing above letter to you I did see that you already contacted him on his role as DGGer but because above text was nearing completion I decided to post in anyway.'

3239:

I know you said back in December you were trying to get your Internet service worked out so you could restore User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press. Any luck with that?

1595:

In this case, the two attribution statements gave it away, for they were quite frank about it. I would probably have deleted it had I not noticed them, without investigation.

4938: 9625: 6609: 1301:

opposes it, and even accept the idea that he/WMF can make a fiat rule against it, just not his idea that there is an obvious and overwhelming consensus that agrees with him.

8786: 7687: 7107: 6820:

discussion onto the talk p. of the project. I appreciate it very much that you're getting this re-started--I confess I had entirely forgotten that I meant to work on this.

4795: 4253: 7208:

is a reliable source that mentions The Body Electric. I think this book is clearly not reliable and thus has no bearing. My comment is not about The Body Electric itself.

2997:

indicate group membership are so used, it aggravates it further. It not the intrinsic use of any particular word that is crucial to NPA--it just makes NPA easier to prove.

9357: 4329: 1612:

because there is a clear potential to expand and improve these articles. I spent some time a year or so ago working on an article about a real 19th century "character",

9355: 8636: 3668: 2220: 9469: 3602:

We have some very clear recommendations for next tries at new notifications for both PROD and AFD, which we will be publishing in a more succinct list soon. (Notes are

6569: 4337: 2533:

You made some comments about the scholarly journal Mechademia, which deals with manga and anime. The full text and all tables of contents for Mechademia are available

2230: 1146: 9353: 9168:

and trying to decipher horribly machine translated Japanese news sources. So, yeah. But i've pledged to work through the PAIDHELP page today and get everything done.

6746:

Greetings DGG. I was looking at WikiProject NIH and it appears to be pretty inactive. Since you and one other are the only apparently active members I wanted to ask.

1883: 10168: 8674: 7226:

listed. The book is independent, published by a division of Harpers and is in 300 libraries. I agree it is fringe science at best, but it's notable fringe science.

6350:

the Wikipedian I once was, and still 10% of where I need to go, yet at 1% of where we should be (my target) I was an expert among my peers. We have a long way to go.

4321: 3293: 2253: 1901: 1558:

afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings.

2409: 2394: 8335: 7531:

as they make way for a new secondary school to take over their campus in Lambak Kiri. As details are finalised and made available more information will be posted."

4540: 2732:

As for the article in question, he's an author of multiple books that have been published by a reputable publisher and are fairly widely held in libraries-- see

1334: 7012:

I deProded Chaiyong Satjipanon because being the ambassador to six nations, including the United States, would appear to be notable. I also found some Thai refs.

4893:

I consider it promotional for the A of A. This is to some extent a holistic judgement, requiring looking at the overall effect of the article. Remember, I did

4174: 6511:

is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

5412: 4325: 3256: 1897: 1869: 10329:

I consider that primarily a matter of clarity of presentation; how to divide up articles is as much a technical question of style as a question of notability.

8525:

Hi DGG! Sorry if you're not the right guy to talk to, but you're one of only two–three people from the list of organizers that I recognized. I asked a question

5126:

COuld you look at the contributors to that article, and block or ask for name changes or protect or whatever? I'm plum out of time today but people editing the

3335:

All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

1189:

the discussion also showed consensus for making (unspecified) improvements to the Article Wizard and giving more attention to the Articles for Creation process.

9989: 9636: 9479:

I've been piled up at work, and just now catching up on an excellent discussion at WT:RFA – far better than the usual "the sky is falling, what are we to do".

9328:

It would be better if you asked BWilkins first--I suggest you tell him that you will keep it only for a week or two, and will get consensus for any additions.

8346: 4456: 1996:

Hi DGG! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

1731: 5212:

all her mysteries I don't have most of the actual paperbacks I bought or collected aeons ago. I do have a couple or so paperbacks and I'll do my best. Yours,

9964: 9119: 7683: 4855:

to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

4031:, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on 10280: 2404:

It's worth noting that I've been engaged by the Academy to help resolve the matter; in hopes of doing so efficiently, I've prepared a proposed replacement (

10432: 10417: 9968: 9838: 8578: 7416:

Al Sharjah National Career Exhibition - United Arab Emirates (If you look at the bottom of the page, Akhtaboot has been their online recruitment partner):

6580: 6405: 5781: 5739: 5706: 4989:

professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.

4527: 4311: 4014: 3289: 2497: 2273: 2249: 1910: 1570: 8358: 7327: 4673:

hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

10425: 9806:

in the hopes that the people who profess to work in this area would do something about the articles. I gave some suggestions for renames and mergers at

7095: 6413: 5180: 4140: 3595: 2709:

I considered posting this at WT:CSD but was sure the subject had, most likely been discussed there previously and I was too lazy to search the archives.

1879: 7435:

Many universities also chose Akhtaboot to power the career's section of their website with Akhtaboot Microsite solution (a whitelabel of Akhtaboot.com:

4945: 4852: 3733:

version of his Talk page) (also note the difference in the entire Talk page taking into account that there are only 2 hours between those two pages)).

6840: 5614: 5582: 5550: 5500: 5459: 5408: 4317: 3343:

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at

3189: 2966: 2655:

clean air, no crime -- we don't live in an ideal world. So we have paid subscribers, who provide the cash we need to pay the printer. But I agree that

1751: 1725: 9673: 5677:

Just wanna thank you sir for being unbiased and allowing my page (List of telenovelas of GMA Network) to exist. Again, thank you, sir and God bless:)

3269:

We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the

2556:

If you go to the page, you'll find vol 4 of Mechademia is available. That wasn't clear in what I just said -- sorry about that. Hope this is clearer.

9940: 9844: 9817: 8615: 7512: 7131:

Yes, it will be better to discuss them together. I was perhaps too optimistic in thinking the prod would stick. New low in organizational gibberish.

3755: 1947: 1289: 10349:. Only difference I see are fiction and fact. Article one fiction requires real-world commentary, while article on fact... what are requirements? -- 9189: 8545:. But as I understand it, the Wiki World's Fair on July 7th will be the principal event, as many people apparently will be there for that day only. 4463: 9692: 8520: 7245: 5242: 5060: 3854:

And you can extend this system to other markings as well: not only SD candidates but also the other ratings/tagging used by the NPPers could get a

3329:

Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

2393:. Prior to November, it was much too promotional; at present, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, as I've explained in 8701: 8191: 4686: 2020:

documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on

1785: 10021: 7410:

Tawdheef Abu Dhabi Job Fair - United Arab Emirates(If you look at the bottom of the page, Akhtaboot has been their online recruitment partner):

4357:

Thanks so much for your help. We need more members to be involved on the Paid Editor Help page if we're ever going to get that process to work.

3897:

aware there is a talk p.) Second, there are many grossly inappropriate articles and we need to be sure to catch them and not miss the notices. .

3297: 2676: 9659: 7017: 6918: 4836: 3406:

I'm finding more and more that newbies are misunderstanding about when primary sources are acceptable, or even if they are acceptable at all.

3087:

Im confused. Accusation of rudeness may or may not be justified. Dont care. How did the "c" word come up? None of the linked diffs include it?

2962: 2927:

and used to illustrate incivility woman to woman (and the original speaker was perhaps using it to emphasise her "working class" credentials?)

1812: 9201:

ISBN 9783902046215, which is presumably the "widely acclaimed" first edition referred to, is in 33 libraries. How would you assess it against

8689: 7444: 4926: 4815:. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the 3730: 1896:

to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests:

10346: 9279:

that an article is well written and researched, missing information is significant; but for a WP article neither part of that can be assumed.

9139: 6397: 5102:. You'll get a letter on really nice looking letterhead in the next week or two. Quest, this goes for you as well. And for everyone, really. 4872: 4028: 3820: 3784: 1362: 8366: 6887:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 5197: 4558:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 4351: 4059: 10193: 9392:

apparently I was working too late at night. I've removed my closes as redundant--and I note that I agreed completely with the other admin.

7363: 5446: 5071: 4577: 3835: 3771:

their 'main' job....); so I can hardly imagine that he checks if the user who wrote the article he norminates for SD is a new user or not.

6888: 4559: 4136: 1746: 6869: 5222: 5056: 5044: 4596:. Were you still planning to make those changes? Would you like some time to do that, or is it okay if I move over draft into mainspace? 4374: 3207: 2613: 2565: 2050: 2043: 1518: 7270: 5404: 10440: 9886: 7371: 6396:

I'm not saying that you meant what you said, but there appears to be a trend. Northamerica basically said the same thing as you did at

5170: 5019: 4964: 3190: 2021: 10410: 5055:

It's our hope that by maintaining such lists, it will be easier for editors to identify self-published books. In a discussion at the

3603: 3346:(to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name 1352: 9866: 7475: 7383: 6409: 5089: 4424: 4368: 3183: 1774: 1185:). I'm not certain that everything is in place to start that restriction. The closing admin specifically mentioned a few conditions. 8627: 8533: 6694:

This is an interesting discussion between two respected colleagues. Please understand the importance of common ground. While mostly

3851:

has analysed the page: when you are not looking for the hidden SD template you never know that it was considered as a SD candidate.

2496:

the journal page at Project MUSE (because that is apparently spam for a paysite, whereas the Amazon links are sources...) Thanks! --

106: 94: 8729: 8649: 7330:

in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!

7296: 7246: 5622: 5590: 5467: 3037: 2899: 5758: 5192: 4887: 3028:

of tools. This is clearly not conducive to a healthy collaboration and growth of the project. In other words, it's disruptive.

2705: 1207: 9298: 9086: 8997: 8830: 7767: 7089: 5861: 5846: 5001:

articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive).

4738:

on the Strayer University Talk page? I have made some updates to the draft based on your feedback. Let me know what you think. --

2265: 1802: 9803: 9214: 9164:

Hey, i've been procrastinating plenty myself. How long has it been since I helped out at PAIDHELP? I spent yesterday working on

8754: 7355: 2973: 2811: 2644: 2281: 1502: 8070: 6502: 5119: 4944:

Thanks for weighing in there and, frankly, I wish I had gone on to say what you ended up saying there. Interestingly, there is

3725:

Another problem that I do have is that he deletes comments made on his Talk page (I had to search really good to find back the

3676: 3347: 3022: 3012: 2877: 2867: 2846: 2836: 2765:, but just in case. I've no idea what it is about, or whether it has significance, but I thought you ought to be aware of it.-- 1172: 250: 246: 239: 110: 90: 10115: 10067: 9859:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 9054: 8397: 8311: 8288: 8267: 8246: 6906: 6540: 4444: 3884: 2599: 2584: 2477: 1177:

It appears that a couple users are trying to implement the restriction of new articles to autoconfirmed users from the recent

102: 9862: 9464: 9003: 8840: 8609: 8603: 8464: 8229: 8114: 7951: 7505: 7494: 7400: 7077: 5789: 5747: 5732: 4867: 4858:

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks,

4777: 2762: 2522: 2300: 2272:

Could you perhaps have a look at this article and the remarks I made at this talk page and tell me what you think? Thanks! --

1451: 9617: 9595: 9179: 9159: 8806: 8773: 8723: 8573: 7757: 7734: 6560: 5984:

But there are indirect effects also: the most obvious is the need to keep articles here long enough that they can be fixed.

5688: 5383: 5348: 5331: 5304: 4302: 3744:

But what struck me the most was his 'its my job and it will never change' statement (not sure if it is still at his current

3658: 3641: 3553:. I have added some comments to the article's talk page and would be grateful if you could take a look and guide me. Thanks 2373: 2353: 2121: 2104: 1219: 9831: 9795: 9762: 7520: 7310: 6806: 5576: 5558: 5508: 5486: 5435: 4554: 4542: 3226: 3164: 3149: 1678: 9578: 9545: 9528: 8077: 7559: 7406:

As part of Akhtaboot's expansion, it has participated in many job fairs in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in 2012:

7125: 6939:

I'll be interested in that ... I PRODded someone recently who was ambassador to several countries but didn't seem to pass

5139: 4766: 3583: 2747: 1977: 1664: 10392: 10377:

interested in a special subject. Without it, AfD would be overly susceptible to the influence of special interest groups.

10358: 10340: 10324: 10310: 10249: 10235: 9779: 9433: 9403: 9320: 8385: 8381: 8377: 7281: 7237: 7142: 6729: 6707: 6588: 5879:

gets hundreds of million visitors a year, so the problem becomes getting them not only to read, but to improve, articles.

5232:

I finally found the old paperbacks; there were more than I thought. Is it ISBN#s and page numbers you're needing? Yours,

5198: 4909: 4695::). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available 4284: 4226: 4211: 4001: 3567:

I added some information to show it is already actually publishing articles. What is needed now is published comments

3131: 2405: 1648: 1631: 1581: 1427:

Hey, am back with query once again, are youtube personalities notable enough to get on WP ? Please help me out over here

1090: 1078: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1043: 1039: 1031: 1027: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 964: 960: 956: 952: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 913: 909: 905: 901: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 862: 858: 854: 850: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 811: 807: 803: 799: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 760: 756: 752: 748: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 709: 705: 701: 697: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 321: 157: 10204:

hoax could survive as long as the prankster fabled it around a book or a film, with a future release date no less. IMO

9449: 8962: 8865: 8556: 8492: 8434: 8415: 8030: 8011: 7977: 7921: 7867: 7842: 7828: 7658:

unfortunately, not as impressive as it might seem, considering that 10 or 20% of them are just to correct my own typos.

6962: 6698:

simply observe, without comment, we generally benefit by considering the agreement you reach. Best regards to you both.

6364: 6330: 6265: 6208: 6110: 6052: 6021: 5960: 5937: 5775: 5159: 4622: 4509: 4494: 4404:

agreed with this statement, and I felt very complacent about it. Since I am becoming better at what I am doing on here,

4195:

anything I recall from any admin: blatant involvement; incident 8 days old; block for a reason given in deprodding when

3988:

Not sure where I referred to me being a coach/mentor thinking that I was role/job as mentor/coach. But I do this on the

3513: 3118: 2952: 1929: 1328: 9981: 9730: 9721: 9612: 9573: 9553: 9081: 8801: 8749: 8514: 8174: 7752: 7703: 7669: 7265: 7085: 7025: 6892: 6855: 6831: 6775: 6689: 5665: 5378: 5326: 5276: 4828: 4682: 4563: 3621: 3068: 2188: 2173: 1878:: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1407: 1390: 1375: 1163: 1047: 1023: 1019: 996: 972: 968: 945: 921: 917: 894: 866: 815: 764: 713: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 607: 603: 599: 595: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 556: 552: 548: 544: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 505: 501: 497: 493: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 454: 450: 446: 442: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 403: 399: 395: 391: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 360: 352: 348: 344: 340: 333: 329: 325: 317: 313: 309: 301: 297: 293: 289: 282: 278: 270: 9339: 9290: 9234: 9094: 9050:

I provided about 7 sources over on Noun's Talk page. Looks like most of them just came out over the last couple days.

7217: 5111: 4162: 4123: 3975: 3929: 3390: 1717: 1694: 7708: 7200: 6990: 6391: 5565:

I still haven't forgotten. Some discussions this last week were rather long to deal with, & I'm a little behind.

5032: 4236: 2237:

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts

1909:: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are 1432: 1422: 1248: 611: 560: 509: 458: 407: 356: 305: 274: 266: 262: 258: 9502: 7190: 7173: 7069: 7046: 7007: 6492: 6478: 3535: 3490: 3479: 3462: 3444: 2687: 2442: 9114: 8854:

is the resentment people here feel at others getting paid for doing work poorly that they do better as volunteers.

8529:

but it doesn't seem like the page is updated often by organizers, but an answer would be great. Thanks in advance,

8456: 6568: 5652: 5534: 4638: 3749: 3248: 3137: 2033: 1828: 1592:

the facts and interpretation often unreliable. So I freely say, though I've almost never taken a hand in it myself.

254: 8683:

wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on

6797:

There are several articles that aren't tagged yet that I would like to add to the project if you think that's ok.

4747: 4466:

probably from the "Developing a response" section. EUF is by far the primary response but there have been others.

2668: 2550: 2358:(and for over 100 earlier discussions on this & closely related issues from my talk p, see my topic archive, 1606: 9418: 9369: 7795: 7120: 6426: 6300: 6073: 5821: 5261: 5067: 3989: 3684: 3577: 2686:

subjects because the creator requests deletion. (In this specific instance it wasn't a request so much as it was

2421: 2266: 2257: 9384: 4720: 4475: 2965:

on Knowledge, she would, by definition, have breached WP:CIVIL - can could be blocked. Now she might argue that

9474: 8712:

the confidence they felt in the quality of Knowledge. I am however not sure of which version they had in mind.

8586: 8526: 8210: 7338: 5127: 5120: 4832: 4691: 4535: 4099: 4090: 3562: 2789: 2408:) that I hope presents an acceptable compromise, or a workable starting point. Hope you can join in discussion 2384: 2057: 150: 9448:

Hi DGG, if you don't mind putting your librarian's hat on for a few minutes, I would welcome your thoughts at

9266: 6575:

David, I should perhaps have noted this on the talk page, but there is something weird with the review in the

5416: 5059:

talk page, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that you and another editor know vanity publishers very well.

4605: 3353: 3344: 2085: 8623: 8614:

Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Knowledge and Authority Control, and have just recently made a

8475: 7777: 7677: 7054: 6878: 6846:

and updated the template example on the project page. I will add it to the WPUS Joint prokects list shortly.

6653: 6525: 5803: 4735: 4549: 3726: 2037: 1820: 78: 37: 9955: 6638: 3288:

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question.

2219:- a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts 9751: 9704: 9242: 8073:. I don't think the point of Knowledge and great content really got across the way I'd like it too, but... 7528: 7445:

http://www.menafn.com/menafn/1093487940/Akhtaboot-Cares-Initiative-Partners-with-Middlesex-University-Dubai

7389:

If there are any references from 2012, please add them. Then it's up to the community to make the decision

6375: 5714: 4725: 4455: 4186: 3789:

Ah: I see that you already contacted him and that he did extensively answered to your comments. Thanks :-)

3696: 3171: 3136:

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to

2769: 2505: 2328: 1679: 9967:. I didn't think I was needed beyond that, though I did just now add my name at the just-started RfC, 7650: 6755: 6598:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to stop placeholder stubs being created without a sourced fact

1702:

it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was

1288:(though I'm not certain the editor even knows of the existence of talk pages). The user's other article, 10240:

No I tend to agree with the clarification given. I simply needed the additional perspective. Thank you.

9347: 9061: 6934: 5829: 4272:

or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

3456:

in particular I have found is great when it comes to policy/guideline page creation/editing, as well.) -

3082: 2906: 2884: 2783: 1582: 6633: 5780:

Good point and good suggestion (thanks King!), I have made this change, let's hope it sticks. Thanks! --

5281: 3155:

for a break and some reflective consideration, I may not post my response before the blackout. Regards.

2229:- a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Knowledge articles (drafts 1956: 1310: 9554: 8143: 7291: 5454:

Talk:Stevens Institute of Technology#Updating_page_along_guidelines_for_college_and_university_articles

5063: 4731: 4689:

is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the

4593: 4592:, you mentioned that you wanted to make some edits to the draft version created by Hamilton83 found at 4583: 3711: 3420: 2429: 2389:

Hi there DGG, you were recently involved, briefly, on the discussion page about an organization called

2073:

all include a reference to the diff or not? My instinct is to remove it and see if that has an effect.

1544: 1530: 1445: 227: 223: 216: 200: 188: 180: 176: 6926: 1135:, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this. 10263: 10213: 10148: 10028: 9934: 9914: 9740:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Mass recreation of previously CSD'd articles

9460: 8155: 8110:

Also, within just a few hours of the articles being published, the discussion hit Jimbo's Talk page.

6386: 5875:

This is not a short-term project. Suppose something might be of interest to one person in a million:

5028:

in our articles, me and a couple other editors have created two lists of self-publishing companies:

4147: 4082: 3558: 3244: 3019: 2970: 2874: 2843: 2766: 2359: 2153: 1778: 220: 212: 208: 204: 196: 192: 184: 172: 168: 67: 26: 10001:

writing about the comapny (as opposed to their products), the article was ripe for deletion. Would

5764:

objectivity of academic journals & my preliminary thought is that King's wording is a good one.

3913:--anyone who wants can ask, and people do ask; I just added a mention there about the possibility. 3096: 2921:

newspaper (a "respectable" paper, not a scandal sheet), albeit as a quote quoted from an article in

2454:

Second, your standard is wrong--At the very least there's certainly a general consensus that it is

1535:

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --

10177: 10138:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

10110: 10016: 9904:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

9678: 9102: 9095: 9044: 8619: 8284: 8242: 7460: 5684: 5233: 5213: 4958: 4649: 3963: 3745: 3234: 2664: 2609: 2595: 2561: 2546: 2528: 2201: 8146:! Your editing expertise is much appreciated and respected by this lowly Huggle jockey. Cheers! 3270: 2511:

I'll comment there. But it's good to see a journal article that does have reviews of the journal.

2337:

always the case" or 'very often the case" -- my own view, as I think is well-known, is that it is

10436: 10421: 9773: 8582: 8204: 7565: 7471: 7466:

And many others, do you think the above can be included in the article and is it worthy enough?--

7379: 6883: 6871: 6741: 6584: 5981:

Yes. In terms of direct effect, the best thing anyone can do here is improve quality of articles.

5785: 5743: 5710: 5398: 4589: 4531: 3401: 2501: 2277: 1991: 9667: 9652: 9607: 9568: 9175: 9135: 9076: 8796: 8744: 8697: 8669: 8567: 8276: 8185: 7944: 7747: 7698: 7351: 7260: 6536: 5842: 5373: 5321: 5271: 5188: 4934: 4863: 4716: 4708: 4519: 4364: 4347: 4280: 4167: 4158: 4119: 4111: 4055: 3652: 3615: 3179: 3170:

FYI and consideration, I have replied to your observations posted to one of the "Swiftboating"

3160: 3145: 2390: 2324: 2115: 2079: 2067: 2014: 1923: 1740: 1564: 1285: 3680: 3370: 9990: 9248: 7064: 7060: 6718:

Discussing the items in the boundary zone is one of the ways by which consensus can change.

6604: 5618: 5586: 5554: 5504: 5463: 5099: 3204: 1856: 1436: 10181: 10169: 9540: 9497: 9453: 7516: 6627: 6516: 5204:

Hi. Glad the article has been, for now, restored to its former glory. I was thinking about

4922:

You were mentioned at WP:EAR regarding something to do with university professor notability

4743: 3554: 3541: 3265:

member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

3240: 3200:. You commented that there's a possibility for a content merge, feel free to go ahead now. 2698: 2216: 2141: 2029: 1952: 1808: 1513: 1279: 1215: 8679:

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a

7323: 6877:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

5176: 4696: 4548:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

4257: 4132: 4106: 8: 10354: 10320: 10276: 10245: 10209: 10105: 10011: 9425: 9376: 9040: 8373: 8280: 8238: 7213: 7116: 6968: 6912: 6703: 6622:

I'm looking forward to seeing you at Wikimania Takes Manhattan - I will also be in DC. --

6153: 5680: 5062:

If you can provide any assistance with these two lists, it would be greatly appreciated.

4950: 4883: 4843: 4827:

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out

4412: 4222: 4182: 4114:

and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards,

3688: 3452:

Due to some of the issues you note, I think I'm going to ask a few others to also help. (

2821:

respond to. I took the same view as others did. If he holds a grudge, that's his lookout.

2660: 2605: 2591: 2557: 2542: 2311: 2226: 1624: 53: 9808:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?

9784:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?

6412:

that I didn't consider merging the non-notable article even though I did. Haus said at

4139:, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 10221: 10140: 9906: 9769: 9165: 9110: 8430: 8393: 8196: 8137: 7467: 7375: 6940: 5697: 5135: 4601: 4505: 4471: 4078: 3092: 2923: 2682: 2488: 2398: 2134: 2000: 1937: 1306: 1132: 7429: 6678:

and it gives an undue 2nd mover advantage, but that's a very complicated question.)

4681:

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism;

2733: 9951: 9882: 9873:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

9827: 9791: 9747: 9700: 9663: 9648: 9601: 9562: 9170: 9130: 9070: 8790: 8738: 8693: 8488: 8151: 7741: 7692: 7642: 7347: 7254: 7021: 6922: 6902: 6891:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 6851: 6802: 6751: 6649: 6532: 5837: 5367: 5315: 5265: 5184: 4930: 4859: 4712: 4573: 4562:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 4359: 4342: 4276: 4154: 4115: 4064: 4051: 3738: 3648: 3611: 3509: 3453: 3175: 3156: 3141: 3033: 2895: 2417: 2320: 2184: 2149: 2111: 2075: 1919: 1816: 1736: 1560: 1540: 1526: 1386: 1348: 1270: 1142: 74: 33: 21: 8279:. My tongue was firmly in my cheek but it still seems good to include such topics. 6199: 5705:

journal website doesn't say so explicitly. Your opinion would be welcome. Thanks! --

4654:

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

3695:

where he was the main driver for the sell-off of the bank to a consortium of banks:

3274: 1944: 1653:

Thanks DGG. I'll try to be sharper about catching such attributions in the future.

10198: 10189: 9684: 9642: 9313: 9260: 9210: 6401: 5255: 5107: 3997: 3971: 3918:

As Knowledge gets larger, change gets more difficult -- but also more necessary.

3910: 3880: 3816: 3780: 3715: 3366: 3262: 3201: 2756: 2202: 1893: 1865: 1834: 1690: 7723:

to work in that fashion. . A better title is also needed: "Editing for money" ?

9535: 9492: 8354: 4739: 4406:

on 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I will reclaim my position as a new page patroller.

3704: 3197: 2691: 2025: 2004: 1769: 1753: 1655: 1211: 10299:

And if I had to choose between both articles or neither, I would accept both.

9069:

is the guideline on reliable sources. That is likely the best place to start.

8066: 7106:, and thought you might like to know that I bundled them together and sent them 4835:

to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on

2212:

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

10350: 10316: 10272: 10241: 10205: 10002: 9411: 9362: 9036: 9023: 7209: 7164: 7150:

is cut and paste copy (down to the typo in "fi elding") of its cited source at

7112: 6981: 6953: 6917:

Could you show me where it says ambassadors are automatically notable because.

6699: 6488: 6422: 6292: 4879: 4783: 4520: 4246: 4218: 4178: 2943: 2802: 1617: 1206:, would you mind looking in to this situation and then providing your input to 6400:

which I didn't even nominate for deletion. Uncle G acted like I didn't follow

10259: 10180:

on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at

9688: 9106: 9051: 9000: 8959: 8837: 8827: 8530: 8470: 8426: 8389: 8342: 8111: 8074: 8008: 7948: 7918: 7839: 7792: 7764: 7545: 7541: 7275: 6695: 6617: 6508: 6483:

Thanks for the advice. I will do that so people don't start assuming things.

6382: 6360: 6296: 6204: 6069: 6048: 5956: 5908: 5857: 5817: 5754: 5205: 5131: 4597: 4501: 4467: 4074: 4024: 3718:

might not be known in the US and he directly reacts as stung by a wasp with:

3358:

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you. Sincerely,

3088: 2761:

It may well be that someone has already had the courtesy of notifying you of

1868:, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is 1798: 1488: 1428: 1302: 1111:

About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project

98: 7893:

Have a productive working relationship with editors, instead of edit-warring

7151: 3714:. In my initial mail to him (or her - didn't check) I made the comment that 1833:

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at

10158: 9947: 9924: 9878: 9874: 9823: 9787: 9759: 9743: 9727: 9696: 9202: 9066: 8826:

Some of my contributions to the essay are influenced by DGG's perspective.

8666: 8657: 8484: 8147: 7634: 6898: 6847: 6798: 6747: 6645: 6068:

Thanks for all your helpful comments. Put me in a slightly better mood ;-)

5025: 4569: 3550: 3505: 3302: 3029: 2891: 2538: 2413: 2180: 2145: 1848: 1536: 1522: 1382: 1344: 1259: 1138: 10185: 9308: 9206: 8929:. What we can do though is provide better instructions (the best we can). 8542: 5103: 5098:

wants to publish the proceedings of your last faculty meeting/conference/

5094:

Quest, that is an excellent idea; DGG, that is an excellent caveat. BTW,

5037: 4526:

In case you didn't see this, a new article you might be interested in. --

4401: 3993: 3967: 3876: 3812: 3776: 3362: 3312: 2959:"found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear" 2312: 1686: 1613: 6201: 4380: 3737:

text in current threads). There is also a formal Mediation request from

3352:

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at

1182: 10005:

have be a more appropriate choice, or is the article sufficient as-is?

8350: 7614: 7574: 5698: 2489: 1837:, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications. 7783: 4782:

Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new

3273:. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst 9251:

page. I laughed in the talk page when I read your comment, " "a 1993

7428:

AUD job fair (please search for the word "Akhtaboot" in the article:

7423: 7155: 6972: 6944: 6484: 6418: 5876: 5670: 3486: 3458: 3416: 2934: 2793: 1487:

The case is not helped , of course, by the comparison that's made to

10416:

David, could you perhaps give your opinion on this issue? Thanks! --

5175:

Hey DGG; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an

2690:). Anyway, thanks for your time...I hope things are well with you. 1198:

Participants on both sides of the discussion agreed on these points.

10383: 10331: 10301: 10226: 10058: 9972: 9712: 9586: 9519: 9394: 9330: 9281: 9225: 9150: 8856: 8764: 8714: 8640: 8594: 8547: 8505: 8447: 8406: 8302: 8258: 8220: 8165: 8021: 7968: 7887:

Avoid "vengeful editing" from editors frustrated with your behavior

7858: 7819: 7725: 7660: 7550: 7485: 7391: 7228: 7181: 7133: 7037: 6998: 6822: 6766: 6720: 6680: 6551: 6469: 6321: 6256: 6101: 6012: 5928: 5766: 5723: 5643: 5567: 5525: 5477: 5426: 5339: 5295: 5150: 5080: 5003: 4900: 4757: 4629: 4613: 4485: 4435: 4398: 4293: 4202: 3920: 3692: 3632: 3526: 3470: 3435: 3381: 3217: 3109: 3059: 3003: 2917: 2858: 2827: 2738: 2635: 2575: 2513: 2468: 2364: 2344: 2291: 2164: 2095: 1968: 1852: 1794: 1708: 1639: 1597: 1493: 1478:

G11, something I also do a good deal. I might have done that here.)

1398: 1366: 1319: 1239: 1154: 8927:

because they just enjoy doing so and see value in my contributions

4730:

DGG, I saw your note last week that you intended to return to the

4146:

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at

3280:

Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at

1945:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novelguide

6408:

just because I didn't know that it had other names. Kvng said at

2003:– it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete 1730:

Hey, just a heads up we prepared the user warnings you made. See

9941:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Authority Control Integration

7461:

http://www.albawaba.com/business/pr/akhtaboot-career-buid-427030

7417: 7280:

Since you're in the malls wikiproject, I'd like you to weigh in

3700: 9452:, on the indexing of surnames beginning with "Mac" or "Mc". -- 5475:

haven't forgotten: I will get there tomorrow or this weekend.

5424:

haven't forgotten: I will get there tomorrow or this weekend.

4175:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Colonel Warden

3598:(See "templates tested" for a look at the different messages). 9848: 7440: 7154:. Possibly not copyvio as US army, but certainly plagiarism. 4070: 7456: 6628: 6623: 3691:, and he had also nominated my article on the former CEO of 2060:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1732:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Suggestions

10056:

d use AfD-- after first looking for additional references.

9641:(This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of 8637:

User talk:Maximiliankleinoclc/Authority control integration

7450: 6152:

as much as creating them. Do you think we should be AfDing

5403:

Hi, we are still hoping you would make some suggestions on

5208:

as it was worthless as a stub. Unfortunately, while I read

2245:

isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

1864:: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of 1553:

Ping about Knowledge talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

8836:

disagreement. Please feel free to revert if you disagree.

8762:

I see the discussion on the name, but where is the essay?

7966:

what is put there might end up being used quite widely.

7411: 6467:

be so treated, I generally say so, and give the reason.

4464:

Baha'i_Institute_for_Higher_Education#Education_Under_Fire

1851:

of level 1 templates, including a new template written by

56:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

9782:). The problem is, as alluded in the section heading of 9303:

Hey, could you do me a favor? Most of the information on

7606:

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

4462:

Hi. Is it time to reconsider a stand alone article? See

4316:

While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the

3484:

Ever get around to copying this into an essay yet? : ) -

10411:

User talk:Materialscientist#Impact factors and infoboxes

10295:

decisive ruling on content, only on article inclusion.

9352:

Greetings DGG. Why are the following AfDs closed twice?

5808:

Hi DGG. I just did a bunch of my first AfD discussions.

5095: 4396: 3754:

That's my job, and it will never change. DreamFieldArts

3277:, and should have more test results in the coming weeks. 2912: 9847:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 9600:

I noticed your two notes. I've left responses there.

4400:, you say that I am doing much "better at my job," and 4050:

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :).

1767:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

58: 10431:

I moved this down, perhaps you didn't see it... :-) --

10135:

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!

10123: 9901:

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!

9637:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

9626:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

8347:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Night flight in the UK

7205:

To clarify, it was said by implication that this book

6507:

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the

4143:

in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

2093:

I agree--omit the diff & we'll check that later;

1210:

with the WMF staff? Thank you for your consideration.

9965:

Knowledge talk:Authority control integration proposal

8469:

Hi-there. Recently, I've been working to improve the

7483:

Add these to the article, and see what people think.

7422:

College of Business Job Fair - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia:

7098:) (the article creator) removed the prods you put on 4105:

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an

1381:

for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well.

219:, 9969:

Knowledge:Authority control integration proposal/RFC

6414:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/E&BV Subdivision

6406:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Neurathian bootstrap

5988:

by excessive bureaucratic or technical difficulties.

3741:

in regards to DFA. (ah: you are in on that as well)

3646:

Indeed, it's our unique chicken and egg problem. :)

1773:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

7430:

http://www.aud.edu/student_services/career_fair.asp

7304:Just a quick update on what we've been working on: 4734:this weekend: have you had a chance to look yet at 4685:is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and 4383:with me at 01:29, on 9 March 2012 (UTC), you said, 3669:

Remarks about an -imho- overactive NewPagePatroller

2604:Yes, all the ToCs are available -- I just checked. 2017:, then paste the bare URL between your <ref: --> 10050:the community would remove it can we act for them. 7682:I have created a rough draft of what could become 5549:Thank you for the update - very much appreciated! 3196:I've closed the AfD and redirected the article to 2007:for your links. All you do is install the script: 1999:I case you're not aware, you might consider using 123:Current time: 14:23, September 21 (UTC) 9845:Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE 9818:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi 9816:poor content, but is — as you can see by reading 9444:Indexing of surnames beginning with "Mac" or "Mc" 8675:AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner! 8665:Not sure if you saw it, but I sent you an email. 8341:This is to inform you that this article has been 7439:King Fahd University for Petroleum and Minerals: 7337:I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, 6971:, and I see Bgwhite has been there recently too. 5856:would be of some minor improvement to Knowledge. 9802:For what it's worth, I simply dropped a note at 9742:and the archived discussions that it points to. 8692:a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, 3710:I really don't think he is the right person for 1786:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Charles Scriven 9786:, that the community has forgotten about this. 8577:this may not be the right way to go. Thanks! -- 7890:Avoid reputational risk from public humiliation 5816:pushing advert or uphold policy to the letter. 5405:Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies#evidence 4338:a general backlog in the Request Edits category 4098:Thanks to all of you who have commented on the 3355:. I will be more than happy to speak with you. 3326:Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes. 3257:Update: new user warning test results available 1966:Do you have 3rd party substantial references? 9804:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Time#Tobias Conradi 3721:have done what he has, but aren't on Knowledge 10347:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane 9812:Remember: The problem with Tobias Conradi is 9120:Regarding the Stevens Institute of Technology 6398:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Pizza 6203:to clear out the queue. What do you think? 4320:page. The sections that need replies include 3872:such a worked out process just let me know. 2360:User talk:DGG/Academic Things and People talk 9839:Disambiguation link notification for June 28 9450:User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mac.2FMc_curiosity 4959: 4394: 4391: 4312:Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page 4015:New Page Triage engagement strategy released 8334:Notification of nomination for deletion of 5912:about appropriate content within articles . 5523:"I haven't forgotten. I'll get there soon. 5264:. Feel free to reply there if you choose. 5057:Knowledge:WikiProject Knowledge reliability 2681:Hi, DGG. I came across a A7 speedy tag at 1335:I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay 9635:You are invited to join the discussion at 4433:checking is worse than not patrolling it. 4131:Thanks to everyone who attended our first 3191:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/PAGG stack 2022:Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup 1726:Testing those alternate templates you made 10345:Umm.... elaborate? Anyway, just in case: 8195: 7152:http://www.bctmod.army.mil/SoSI/sosi.html 6841:WikiProject National Institutes of Health 6410:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Compojure 3582:Hey David. Just saw your comments on the 2659:open and free access would be wonderful. 10373:collectively want to put into Knowledge. 8521:Question about Wikimania Takes Manhattan 7548:--anyone can edit the p., not just you. 7333:Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I 7247:Talk:List of professional sports leagues 4069:...for your contribution to the article 3727:Deletion request Rijman Groenink version 3379:project in general, and will email you. 2539:http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mechademia/ 47: 10315:How about as "stand-alone articles"? -- 9946:I'm surprised that you didn't comment. 4794:As previously mentioned, we're doing a 3590:Thank you for the thoughtful commentary 2395:a note on the article's discussion page 65: 14: 10170:Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting 9191:Neocleous's introduction to Cyprus law 7572: 5641:I shall try to get to it this evening. 4819:discussed) that messed with the tool. 3322:So a few things about the interviews: 2890:incivility seems to be unimportant. 2049:Hello, DGG. You have new messages at 1115:Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David, 8823:The COI contributing would be me. ;-) 4873:List of Golden Plate Awardees Article 4627:Not yet ready--see my comments there. 3215:I'll take a look after the blackout. 2969:had bated her, but would we buy it?-- 2109:Done. Thanks for the quick response. 66:Revision as of 11:05, 1 July 2012 by 44: 25: 10139: 10087:Thanks for treating a newbie gently. 9905: 7621:This user has been awarded with the 7609: 7365:Nomination of Akhtaboot for deletion 5447:Stevens Institute of Technology page 5045:WP:List of self-publishing companies 3836:New role: Assistant NewPagePatroller 2856:considers it insult is irrelevant. 2677:I'm looking for your advice : Speedy 17: 4375:New page patrolling; DreamFieldArts 1886:) This test should start this week. 1847:: There are tests still running in 1775:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 119: 88: 10128: 9894: 8483:. I truly appreciate your help! -- 8367:Hundred Years' War Articles (four) 7424:http://www.ameinfo.com/294402.html 7315:fixed in our deployment this week. 6893:Knowledge:Feedback request service 5669: 5199:Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels 5171:Article Feedback Tool office hours 5020:Lists of self-publishing companies 4564:Knowledge:Feedback request service 3675:I saw that you were involved in a 3586:about AfD etc. and wanted to say: 2042: 1917:Thanks for your help and support, 197:Universities & academic people 187:, 120: 10452: 9247:DGG, thanks for your help on the 7059:Thought you might want to expand 6295:is a higher bar than I realized. 5407:. Your help will be appreciated. 5033:List of self-publishing companies 1784:The article will be discussed at 1340:WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. 1258:notability? Thanks is advance... 1102:DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use 141:DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use 52:. The present address (URL) is a 9683:Would appreciate your restoring 9630: 8731:User talk:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY 7613: 7573: 7297:Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 4807: 4264: 4039: 3677:Speedy Deletion Nomination (SDN) 1840:Here's what we're up to lately: 1760: 228:Bias, intolerance, and prejudice 10027:The explanation of this is at 9314: 9309: 9305:Personal life of Jennifer Lopez 9299:Personal life of Jennifer Lopez 8205: 8201: 8197: 7884:I use the following arguments: 5893:same ones coming in back again. 5262:User talk:Dennis Brown/Thoughts 4842:We've also been working on the 4707:Further questions or issues to 4334:Stevens Institute of Technology 4252:This is being done through the 4135:session; the logs can be found 4027:about the project and also the 2267:Talk:Scholar Indices and Impact 1261: 9169: 9129: 8386:Hundred Years' War (1415–1453) 8382:Hundred Years' War (1369–1389) 8378:Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) 7341:and I'll get it sorted out :). 7104:Network Integration Evaluation 6713:but then the question becomes 6503:New Page Triage/New Pages Feed 6385:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 6363:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 6299:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 6207:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 6072:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 6051:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 5959:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 5860:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 5836: 5820:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 5757:(COI Disclosure on User Page) 5234: 5214: 5128:National Youth Strings Academy 5121:National Youth Strings Academy 4555:Talk:Stella Parton discography 4543:Talk:Stella Parton discography 4358: 4341: 2911:Interestingly the word "cunt" 1503:00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 1452:18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 1446: 1437: 1408:23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC) 1391:23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC) 1376:23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC) 1353:11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC) 1329:04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 1311:02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 1173:May I have your input, please? 209:Books & other publications 13: 1: 9843:Hi. When you recently edited 8610:Authority Control Integration 8574:question about journal titles 8465:Assistance with Bloomberg Law 8190:Your comments in the AfD for 7598: 7595: 7506:Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang 7418:http://www.nationalcareer.ae/ 7165: 7156: 7148:System of Systems Integration 7100:System of Systems Integration 7086:System of Systems Integration 7079:System of Systems Integration 6982: 6973: 6954: 6945: 5955:before doing too many AfDs. 5096:Cambridge Scholars Publishing 4778:Article Feedback Tool updates 4736:my response to your questions 4405: 4247:the new Article Feedback Tool 4002:20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3976:07:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3930:04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3885:21:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3821:20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3807: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3790: 3785:20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3756:13:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3748:- but if not you can find it 3659:22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3642:22:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3622:18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3563:09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3536:19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 3514:19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 3491:14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 3480:04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3463:02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3449:Looks like a very good start. 3445:02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3421:02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2957:The quote says it all. Burke 2944: 2935: 2803: 2794: 2478:02:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 2443:16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 2422:18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC) 2374:05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2354:05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2329:19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2301:20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 2282:22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC) 2258:01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 2189:05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 2174:03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 2154:03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 2144:that may be of interest. -- 2122:01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 2105:01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 2086:00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 2038:07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 1978:18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1957:15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1619: 1440: 10144:at any time by removing the 9910:at any time by removing the 9174: 9134: 7620: 7591: 7582: 7529:Pusat Tingkatan Enam Berakas 7449:Middlesex University Dubai: 6359:Appreciate the discussion. 5841: 4849:special office hours session 4823:New designs and office hours 4363: 4346: 3697:Royal Bank of Scotland Group 3391:06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 3371:05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 3298:19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 3249:06:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 3227:01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 3208:22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 3184:16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 3165:19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 3150:18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 3119:01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 3097:19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 3069:02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 3038:23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 3023:22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 3013:22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2974:18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2953:17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2900:17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2878:16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2868:15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2847:04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2837:04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2812:09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2770:01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 2748:06:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 2706:05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1930:02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1803:01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 1747:01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 1718:16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1695:06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1680:Guide to information sources 1665:17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1649:05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1632:04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1625: 1607:04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 1571:18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 1545:05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 1531:03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 1284:Thanks for your comments on 7: 8787:User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY 8065:In any case, check out the 7688:User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY 5260:What do you think of this: 4035:talkpage, or in my inbox - 3903:hundred edits is necessary. 3831: 3828: 3794: 3788: 3549:Thanks for your support on 3132:FYI - Courtesy Notification 2669:19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2645:18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2614:18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2600:18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2585:18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2566:18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2551:18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2523:01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2506:08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 1855:. A full list is available 1583:Clarence Ridgeby Greathouse 121: 24:of this page, as edited by 10: 10457: 9555:User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD 9199:Introduction to Cyprus Law 8445:commented again there. 8144:City University of Seattle 7441:http://kfupm.akhtaboot.com 6889:suggestions for responding 6570:Metatextbook of Medicine‎‎ 5666:A cute kitten for you sir! 5223:16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 5193:03:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 5160:03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 5140:03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 5112:04:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) 5090:01:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 5072:23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 4965:13:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 4939:00:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 4910:03:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 4888:03:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC) 4639:19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 4623:17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 4606:13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 4594:User:Hamilton83/my sandbox 4578:17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 4560:suggestions for responding 4536:11:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 4510:10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 4495:02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 4476:12:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 4445:22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 4425:21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 4369:01:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 4352:03:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 4303:21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 4285:21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 4254:Feedback Evaluation System 4227:00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 4212:22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 4187:15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 4163:00:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 2051:Moonriddengirl's talk page 1272:20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC 1249:18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 1220:07:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 10426:09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10264:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter 10250:23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10236:23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10214:23:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10194:17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10116:05:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10068:04:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 10022:03:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 9982:00:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 9956:00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 9887:13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 9763:08:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 9752:00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 9731:02:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 9722:20:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 9705:20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 9674:18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 9658:18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 9618:02:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 9596:00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 9579:15:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 9546:12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 9529:03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 9503:22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 9470:15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 9434:17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 9404:17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 9385:07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 9340:20:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 9321:03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 9291:21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 9267:20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 9235:17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 9215:17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 9180:21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9160:21:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9140:21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9115:18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9087:20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 9055:13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9045:02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 9004:00:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 8963:23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 8866:19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 8841:01:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 8831:21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 8807:00:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 8774:23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 8755:17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 8724:00:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 8702:16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 8670:15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 8650:19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 8628:18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 8604:18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 8587:07:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 8557:01:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 8534:00:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 8515:18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8493:18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8457:18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 8435:11:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 8416:18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8398:16:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8359:23:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 8312:23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 8289:09:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 8268:16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 8247:15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 8230:14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 8211:04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 8115:23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8078:13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8031:21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 8012:13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 7978:00:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 7952:16:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 7922:23:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 7768:16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 7579: 7495:19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 7476:13:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 7457:http://buid.akhtaboot.com 7311:centralised feedback page 7201:Possible misunderstanding 6514:The page can be found at 6392:There seems to be a trend 5653:16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 5623:16:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 5243:20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 4868:14:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 4808: 4767:18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4748:17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4721:17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4265: 4237:help triage some feedback 4148:Knowledge:New Page Triage 4124:23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4083:17:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 4060:02:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 4040: 3606:, if you're interested.) 3311:My name is Jonathan Obar 1913:and help is most welcome. 1423:BLP Youtube personalities 203:, 10441:07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10393:08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10359:04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10341:03:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10325:03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10311:03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10281:03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 10178:Jefferson Market Library 9993:speedy deletion question 9832:11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 9796:11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 9738:There's more to read on 8175:03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 8156:00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 7868:03:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 7843:01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 7829:03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 7796:21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7782:A PR publication called 7758:17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7735:16:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7709:14:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7670:03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 7651:13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7560:17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7521:12:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7451:http://mdx.akhtaboot.com 7401:18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7384:07:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 7356:22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 7292:11:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 7271:21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 7238:18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7218:10:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7191:07:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7174:07:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7143:04:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7126:04:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7070:11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 7047:00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7026:00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 7008:16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 6991:12:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 6963:11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 6927:07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 6907:21:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 6856:15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC) 6836:I moved the template to 6832:06:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6807:02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6776:02:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6756:01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6730:00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6708:00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 6690:20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC) 6654:12:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC) 6634:03:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 6610:06:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC) 6589:16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 6561:21:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 6541:13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 6493:19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6479:16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6427:14:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6387:17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 6365:05:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6331:03:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6301:03:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC) 6266:14:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 6209:07:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 6111:04:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 6074:01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 6053:16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 6022:16:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 5961:20:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5938:15:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5862:14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5847:08:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5822:08:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5790:16:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 5776:05:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 5759:03:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC) 5748:18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 5733:18:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 5715:13:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 5689:02:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC) 5591:13:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 5577:03:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 5559:20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 5535:19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC) 5509:21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 5487:05:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 5468:14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 5436:05:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 4796:big round of hand-coding 4732:Strayer University draft 4100:New Page Triage talkpage 1829:WP:UWTEST members update 1777:or whether it should be 1704:guides to the literature 9103:Talk:Hundred Years' War 9101:I have answered you on 9096:Talk:Hundred Years' War 8069:and a similar story in 7412:http://www.tawdheef.ae/ 7370:Hi, you have nominated 5417:02:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 5384:00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 5349:22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 5332:22:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 5305:15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 5282:12:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 5049:notable and non-notable 5047:in Knowledge space for 5024:Inan effort to improve 4590:Talk:Strayer University 3875:Hope to hear from you, 3578:On newbies and deletion 1164:21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 1147:12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 151:Barnstars, Awards, etc. 10133: 9899: 9475:Your comment at WT:RFA 9249:McKinsey & Company 8343:nominated for deletion 8336:Night flight in the UK 8277:The Great Cat Massacre 7455:British Uni in Dubai: 6673:Additionally, I would 6526:tell us what you think 5674: 5051:self-publishing houses 5041:self-publishing houses 4611:I'll get there today. 4091:Page Triage newsletter 3990:Dutch Coaching program 3282:the documentation page 2391:Academy of Achievement 2385:Academy of Achievement 2248:Thanks for your help! 2047: 2015:Special:MyPage/skin.js 1890:Shared and dynamic IPs 1286:User talk:Chinmaya.328 1200: 1191: 1181:(please refer to this 1128: 181:COI & paid editors 84:(On productive effort) 49:(On productive effort) 10132: 10078:particular line lies. 9991:Illwinter Game Design 9898: 8616:Village Pump Proposal 8541:the person to ask is 7947:with Robert Lawton. 7778:Interview with Ragans 7678:Something to look at. 7061:Taxatio Ecclesiastica 7055:Taxatio Ecclesiastica 5804:Articles for Deletion 5673: 5100:Jane Austen Book Club 5064:A Quest For Knowledge 5035:in article space for 5011:) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012 4784:Article Feedback Tool 4483:why ask for trouble? 4025:initial documentation 3679:on the article about 2788:New link seems to be 2406:in my user space here 2046: 1202:As you wrote the key 1195: 1187: 1123: 10182:Knowledge:Meetup/NYC 9875:opt-out instructions 9664:Steven Walling (WMF) 9649:Steven Walling (WMF) 9243:Thanks for your help 7322:we'll be holding an 7084:DGG, I noticed that 6577:Deutsches Ärtzeblatt 6517:Special:NewPagesFeed 4878:referring to. Thanks 4829:the oversighter view 4457:Education Under Fire 3687:. The SDN came from 3649:Steven Walling (WMF) 3612:Steven Walling (WMF) 3271:project page on Meta 2913:appears (final para) 2112:Steven Walling (WMF) 2076:Steven Walling (WMF) 1920:Steven Walling (WMF) 1737:Steven Walling (WMF) 1561:Steven Walling (WMF) 10258:Difference between 9857:fix with Dab solver 9348:Double AfD closures 8620:Maximiliankleinoclc 8163:I have just begun. 6969:Chaiyong Satjipanon 6879:request for comment 4668:otherwise complete. 4550:request for comment 4029:engagement strategy 3689:User:DreamFieldArts 3681:Csongor István Nagy 3584:Village Pump thread 3571:about the jhournal 2734:WorldCat Identities 1943:number. Thank you. 224:Educational Program 189:Bilateral relations 95:← Previous revision 10141:remove this notice 10134: 10029:WP:Deletion policy 9963:I had done so, at 9907:remove this notice 9900: 9865:• Join us at the 9166:Man With A Mission 8374:Hundred Years' War 7623:100000 Edits award 7320:Thursday, 7th June 6870:Please comment on 6639:Geo Swan's article 6520:. Please, please, 5675: 5499:Great, thank you! 4726:Strayer University 4584:Strayer University 4541:Please comment on 4330:Strayer University 3739:User: Bill shannon 3569:from third parties 2683:James E. Wise, Jr. 2430:In popular culture 2058:remove this notice 2048: 2005:citation templates 1119:WP:AN/I Archive691 221:In Popular Culture 169:Deletion & AfD 45:11:05, 1 July 2012 9935:authority control 9870: 9695:a few days ago. 9646: 9615: 9610: 9576: 9571: 9468: 9084: 9079: 9062:talk page stalker 8804: 8799: 8752: 8747: 7755: 7750: 7706: 7701: 7649: 7630: 7629: 7604: 7603: 7268: 7263: 6935:talk page stalker 6884:Talk:Donald Tsang 6872:Talk:Donald Tsang 6603:Please comment.♦ 5830:talk page stalker 5381: 5376: 5329: 5324: 5279: 5274: 4709:the usual address 4388: 3685:User Lovehongkong 3454:User:Black Falcon 3083:talk page stalker 2907:talk page stalker 2885:talk page stalker 2784:talk page stalker 2713: 2410:on that Talk page 2289:commented there. 1825: 1811:comment added by 1208:this conversation 233:General Archives: 215:, 205:Academic journals 173:Speedy & prod 165:Topical Archives: 10448: 10165: 10163: 10157: 10153: 10147: 10143: 10131: 10113: 10108: 10019: 10014: 9931: 9929: 9923: 9919: 9913: 9909: 9897: 9860: 9853:check to confirm 9685:Time in Illinois 9679:Time in Illinois 9672: 9670: 9657: 9655: 9640: 9634: 9633: 9613: 9608: 9574: 9569: 9543: 9538: 9500: 9495: 9459: 9456: 9432: 9430: 9423: 9416: 9383: 9381: 9374: 9367: 9318: 9311: 9263: 9258: 9178: 9173: 9138: 9133: 9128:ever completed? 9082: 9077: 9065: 8802: 8797: 8750: 8745: 8209: 8207: 8203: 8199: 8142:For cleaning up 7753: 7748: 7744: 7704: 7699: 7695: 7641: 7626: 7617: 7610: 7600: 7599: 7596: 7586: 7577: 7570: 7569: 7289: 7287:Ten Pound Hammer 7266: 7261: 7257: 7171: 7162: 7124: 7067: 6988: 6979: 6960: 6951: 6938: 6845: 6839: 6630: 6625: 6607: 5845: 5840: 5833: 5379: 5374: 5370: 5327: 5322: 5318: 5277: 5272: 5268: 5240: 5220: 4961: 4955: 4946:a dispute at DRN 4833:the monitor view 4814: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4677:Stuff to look at 4650:A big NPT update 4423: 4420: 4415: 4407: 4384: 4367: 4362: 4350: 4345: 4318:Paid Editor Help 4291:via checkboxes. 4271: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4046: 4044: 4043: 4042: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3811: 3805: 3802: 3799: 3796: 3792: 3791: 3716:Rijkman Groenink 3657: 3655: 3620: 3618: 3361:Jonathan Obar -- 3235:Internet service 3086: 2967:User:Posh-Helena 2950: 2941: 2910: 2888: 2809: 2800: 2787: 2708: 2702: 2695: 2529:Mechademia edits 2440: 2438:Ten Pound Hammer 2120: 2118: 2084: 2082: 2061: 1960: 1928: 1926: 1824: 1805: 1764: 1763: 1745: 1743: 1661: 1660: 1629: 1627:Let's discuss it 1621: 1569: 1567: 1448: 1442: 1439: 1268: 1267: 195:, 107:Newer revision → 85: 82: 61: 59:current revision 51: 50: 46: 42: 41: 10456: 10455: 10451: 10450: 10449: 10447: 10446: 10445: 10414: 10268: 10242:StringdaBrokeda 10206:StringdaBrokeda 10201: 10174: 10166: 10161: 10155: 10151: 10149:You've got mail 10145: 10137: 10129: 10126: 10111: 10106: 10017: 10012: 9995: 9937: 9932: 9927: 9921: 9917: 9915:You've got mail 9911: 9903: 9895: 9867:DPL WikiProject 9841: 9681: 9668: 9662: 9653: 9647: 9631: 9628: 9558: 9541: 9536: 9498: 9493: 9477: 9454: 9446: 9426: 9419: 9412: 9409: 9377: 9370: 9363: 9360: 9350: 9301: 9261: 9256: 9245: 9194: 9122: 9099: 9059: 9026: 8734: 8677: 8660: 8612: 8570: 8523: 8467: 8369: 8339: 8188: 8140: 7780: 7742: 7693: 7680: 7631: 7568: 7566:Congratulations 7508: 7478: 7368: 7299: 7285: 7278: 7255: 7250: 7203: 7111: 7082: 7065: 7057: 6967:Ah, found him, 6932: 6915: 6875: 6843: 6837: 6744: 6742:WikiProject NIH 6641: 6620: 6605: 6601: 6573: 6505: 6394: 6378: 5827: 5806: 5702: 5668: 5449: 5401: 5399:Self-publishing 5368: 5337:effectiveness. 5316: 5266: 5258: 5237:Quis separabit? 5217:Quis separabit? 5202: 5173: 5124: 5022: 4951: 4924: 4875: 4806: 4804: 4780: 4728: 4652: 4586: 4546: 4524: 4460: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4377: 4314: 4263: 4261: 4239: 4170: 4093: 4067: 4038: 4036: 4017: 3849:NPP in training 3838: 3705:Banco Santander 3671: 3653: 3647: 3616: 3610: 3580: 3555:PointOfPresence 3544: 3404: 3402:Primary sources 3305: 3259: 3241:Alden Loveshade 3237: 3198:The 4-Hour Body 3194: 3134: 3080: 3030:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2904: 2892:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2882: 2781: 2759: 2700: 2693: 2679: 2531: 2493: 2436: 2432: 2387: 2316: 2270: 2217:ImageTaggingBot 2207: 2181:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2146:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2142:at this project 2137: 2116: 2110: 2080: 2074: 2070: 2062: 2055: 2011: 1994: 1992:A tool for you! 1950: 1948:User:AbbyWaters 1940: 1924: 1918: 1831: 1806: 1770:Charles Scriven 1765: 1761: 1758: 1754:Charles Scriven 1741: 1735: 1728: 1683: 1658: 1656: 1586: 1565: 1559: 1555: 1537:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1523:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1516: 1431:and check this 1425: 1337: 1290:Themis Medicare 1282: 1260: 1204:dissenting view 1183:bugzilla thread 1175: 1113: 125: 118: 117: 116: 115: 114: 99:Latest revision 87: 86: 83: 72: 70: 57: 48: 31: 29: 12: 11: 5: 10454: 10444: 10443: 10413: 10408: 10406: 10404: 10403: 10402: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10398: 10397: 10396: 10395: 10378: 10374: 10366: 10267: 10256: 10255: 10254: 10253: 10252: 10200: 10197: 10173: 10167: 10136: 10127: 10125: 10122: 10121: 10120: 10119: 10118: 10100: 10099: 10098: 10097: 10091: 10090: 10089: 10088: 10082: 10081: 10080: 10079: 10072: 10071: 10051: 10043: 10033: 10032: 9994: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9944: 9943: 9936: 9933: 9902: 9893: 9891: 9840: 9837: 9836: 9835: 9800: 9799: 9798: 9736: 9735: 9734: 9733: 9680: 9677: 9627: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9557: 9552: 9551: 9550: 9549: 9548: 9514: 9510: 9476: 9473: 9445: 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9437: 9436: 9349: 9346: 9345: 9344: 9343: 9342: 9300: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9294: 9293: 9244: 9241: 9240: 9239: 9238: 9237: 9193: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9184: 9183: 9182: 9121: 9118: 9098: 9093: 9092: 9091: 9090: 9089: 9025: 9022: 9021: 9020: 9019: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9015: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9010: 9009: 9008: 9007: 9006: 8978: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8973: 8972: 8971: 8970: 8969: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8940: 8939: 8938: 8937: 8936: 8935: 8934: 8933: 8932: 8931: 8930: 8909: 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8902: 8901: 8900: 8899: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8879: 8878: 8877: 8876: 8875: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8871: 8870: 8869: 8868: 8851: 8847: 8824: 8814: 8813: 8812: 8811: 8810: 8809: 8779: 8778: 8777: 8776: 8733: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8676: 8673: 8659: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8653: 8652: 8611: 8608: 8607: 8606: 8569: 8568:Journal titles 8566: 8564: 8562: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8522: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8500: 8466: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8460: 8459: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8419: 8418: 8368: 8365: 8363: 8338: 8332: 8331: 8330: 8329: 8328: 8327: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8322: 8321: 8320: 8319: 8318: 8317: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8292: 8291: 8250: 8249: 8187: 8186:Nicely said... 8184: 8182: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8139: 8136: 8134: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8040: 8039: 8038: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8033: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7987: 7986: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7958: 7931: 7930: 7929: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7925: 7924: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7891: 7888: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7871: 7870: 7848: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7832: 7831: 7813: 7812: 7779: 7776: 7775: 7774: 7773: 7772: 7771: 7770: 7679: 7676: 7675: 7674: 7673: 7672: 7646: 7638: 7628: 7627: 7618: 7608: 7602: 7601: 7588: 7587: 7580: 7578: 7567: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7532: 7527:students from 7507: 7504: 7502: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7465: 7464: 7463: 7453: 7447: 7433: 7432: 7426: 7420: 7414: 7404: 7403: 7367: 7362: 7360: 7345: 7343: 7342: 7339:drop me a line 7331: 7316: 7298: 7295: 7277: 7274: 7249: 7244: 7243: 7242: 7241: 7240: 7202: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7081: 7076: 7074: 7056: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7032: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7013: 6914: 6911: 6874: 6868: 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6810: 6809: 6795: 6791: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6743: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6671: 6667: 6663: 6640: 6637: 6619: 6616: 6614: 6600: 6595: 6593: 6572: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6509:New Pages Feed 6504: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6454: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6440: 6436: 6393: 6390: 6377: 6374: 6372: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6354: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6334: 6333: 6315: 6314: 6309: 6308: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6286: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6279: 6278: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6269: 6268: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6222: 6221: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6176: 6175: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6167: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6078: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6024: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5992: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5985: 5982: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5963: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5850: 5849: 5805: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5793: 5792: 5701: 5696: 5694: 5691: 5681:Doubledutch781 5667: 5664: 5662: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5579: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5448: 5445: 5443: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5400: 5397: 5395: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5308: 5307: 5257: 5254: 5252: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5201: 5196: 5172: 5169: 5167: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5123: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5053: 5052: 5042: 5021: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 4998: 4994: 4983: 4975: 4971: 4953:TransporterMan 4949:Best regards, 4923: 4920: 4918: 4915: 4913: 4912: 4874: 4871: 4779: 4776: 4774: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4727: 4724: 4670: 4669: 4665: 4651: 4648: 4646: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4585: 4582: 4545: 4539: 4523: 4521:A.L.A. catalog 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4459: 4454: 4452: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4376: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4313: 4310: 4308: 4306: 4305: 4275:All the best, 4238: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4169: 4168:Colonel Warden 4166: 4128: 4092: 4089: 4087: 4066: 4063: 4016: 4013: 4011: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3959: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3935: 3933: 3932: 3915: 3914: 3905: 3904: 3899: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3841: 3837: 3834: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3787: 3674: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3609:Thanks again, 3600: 3599: 3591: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3516: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3450: 3430: 3403: 3400: 3398: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3351: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3310: 3304: 3301: 3286: 3285: 3278: 3258: 3255: 3253: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3193: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3133: 3130: 3128: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3043: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2751: 2750: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2716: 2678: 2675: 2673: 2661:Timothy Perper 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2606:Timothy Perper 2592:Timothy Perper 2558:Timothy Perper 2543:Timothy Perper 2530: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2492: 2487: 2485: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2463: 2460: 2452: 2431: 2428: 2426: 2386: 2383: 2381: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2356: 2315: 2310: 2308: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2269: 2264: 2262: 2235: 2234: 2227:CorenSearchBot 2224: 2206: 2200: 2198: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2136: 2133: 2131: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2069: 2068:Quick question 2066: 2064: 2054: 2041: 2009: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1985: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1955:comment added 1939: 1936: 1934: 1915: 1914: 1904: 1887: 1873: 1859: 1830: 1827: 1759: 1757: 1752:Nomination of 1750: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1593: 1585: 1580: 1578: 1575: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1515: 1512: 1510: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1461: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1274: 1273: 1253: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1167: 1166: 1136: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1050: 999: 948: 897: 846: 795: 744: 693: 642: 591: 540: 489: 438: 387: 336: 285: 242: 235: 226: 211: 191: 167: 161: 137: 136: 132: 68: 54:permanent link 27: 16: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10453: 10442: 10438: 10434: 10433:Guillaume2303 10430: 10429: 10428: 10427: 10423: 10419: 10418:Guillaume2303 10412: 10407: 10394: 10390: 10386: 10385: 10379: 10375: 10372: 10367: 10363: 10362: 10360: 10356: 10352: 10348: 10344: 10343: 10342: 10338: 10334: 10333: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10322: 10318: 10314: 10313: 10312: 10308: 10304: 10303: 10298: 10293: 10288: 10285: 10284: 10283: 10282: 10278: 10274: 10265: 10261: 10260:Sam and Diane 10251: 10247: 10243: 10239: 10238: 10237: 10233: 10229: 10228: 10223: 10218: 10217: 10216: 10215: 10211: 10207: 10196: 10195: 10191: 10187: 10183: 10179: 10171: 10160: 10150: 10142: 10117: 10114: 10109: 10104: 10103: 10102: 10101: 10095: 10094: 10093: 10092: 10086: 10085: 10084: 10083: 10076: 10075: 10074: 10073: 10070: 10069: 10065: 10061: 10060: 10052: 10049: 10044: 10040: 10035: 10034: 10030: 10026: 10025: 10024: 10023: 10020: 10015: 10009: 10008:Thanks much, 10006: 10004: 9998: 9992: 9983: 9979: 9975: 9974: 9970: 9966: 9962: 9961: 9960: 9959: 9958: 9957: 9953: 9949: 9942: 9939: 9938: 9926: 9916: 9908: 9892: 9889: 9888: 9884: 9880: 9876: 9871: 9868: 9864: 9858: 9854: 9850: 9846: 9834: 9833: 9829: 9825: 9821: 9819: 9815: 9809: 9805: 9801: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9785: 9781: 9778: 9775: 9771: 9770:Indiana State 9766: 9765: 9764: 9761: 9756: 9755: 9754: 9753: 9749: 9745: 9741: 9732: 9729: 9725: 9724: 9723: 9719: 9715: 9714: 9709: 9708: 9707: 9706: 9702: 9698: 9694: 9690: 9686: 9676: 9675: 9671: 9665: 9661: 9656: 9650: 9644: 9638: 9619: 9616: 9611: 9605: 9604: 9599: 9598: 9597: 9593: 9589: 9588: 9583: 9582: 9581: 9580: 9577: 9572: 9566: 9565: 9556: 9547: 9544: 9539: 9532: 9531: 9530: 9526: 9522: 9521: 9515: 9511: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9501: 9496: 9488: 9484: 9480: 9472: 9471: 9466: 9462: 9458: 9451: 9435: 9431: 9429: 9424: 9422: 9417: 9415: 9407: 9406: 9405: 9401: 9397: 9396: 9391: 9390: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9386: 9382: 9380: 9375: 9373: 9368: 9366: 9358: 9356: 9354: 9341: 9337: 9333: 9332: 9327: 9326: 9325: 9324: 9323: 9322: 9319: 9317: 9312: 9306: 9292: 9288: 9284: 9283: 9278: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9269: 9268: 9264: 9254: 9250: 9236: 9232: 9228: 9227: 9221: 9220: 9219: 9218: 9217: 9216: 9212: 9208: 9204: 9200: 9192: 9181: 9177: 9172: 9167: 9163: 9162: 9161: 9157: 9153: 9152: 9146: 9145: 9144: 9143: 9142: 9141: 9137: 9132: 9127: 9117: 9116: 9112: 9108: 9104: 9097: 9088: 9085: 9080: 9074: 9073: 9068: 9063: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9053: 9052:User:King4057 9049: 9048: 9047: 9046: 9042: 9038: 9035:Thanks, David 9033: 9029: 9005: 9002: 9001:User:King4057 8998: 8994: 8993: 8992: 8991: 8990: 8989: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8984: 8983: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8964: 8961: 8960:User:King4057 8957: 8956: 8955: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8944: 8928: 8923: 8922: 8921: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8916: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8911: 8910: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8887: 8886: 8885: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8881: 8880: 8867: 8863: 8859: 8858: 8852: 8848: 8844: 8843: 8842: 8839: 8838:User:King4057 8834: 8833: 8832: 8829: 8828:User:King4057 8825: 8822: 8821: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8815: 8808: 8805: 8800: 8794: 8793: 8788: 8785: 8784: 8783: 8782: 8781: 8780: 8775: 8771: 8767: 8766: 8761: 8760: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8756: 8753: 8748: 8742: 8741: 8732: 8725: 8721: 8717: 8716: 8711: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8703: 8699: 8695: 8691: 8686: 8682: 8672: 8671: 8668: 8663: 8651: 8647: 8643: 8642: 8638: 8635:commented at 8634: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8625: 8621: 8617: 8605: 8601: 8597: 8596: 8591: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8584: 8580: 8579:Guillaume2303 8575: 8565: 8558: 8554: 8550: 8549: 8544: 8540: 8539: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8532: 8528: 8516: 8512: 8508: 8507: 8501: 8497: 8496: 8495: 8494: 8490: 8486: 8482: 8477: 8472: 8471:Bloomberg Law 8458: 8454: 8450: 8449: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8436: 8432: 8428: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8420: 8417: 8413: 8409: 8408: 8402: 8401: 8400: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8387: 8383: 8379: 8375: 8364: 8361: 8360: 8356: 8352: 8348: 8344: 8337: 8313: 8309: 8305: 8304: 8298: 8297: 8296: 8295: 8294: 8293: 8290: 8286: 8282: 8278: 8273: 8272: 8271: 8270: 8269: 8265: 8261: 8260: 8254: 8253: 8252: 8251: 8248: 8244: 8240: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8231: 8227: 8223: 8222: 8217: 8216: 8215: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8208: 8200: 8193: 8192:Orville (cat) 8183: 8176: 8172: 8168: 8167: 8162: 8161: 8160: 8159: 8158: 8157: 8153: 8149: 8145: 8135: 8116: 8113: 8112:User:King4057 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8079: 8076: 8075:User:King4057 8072: 8068: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8058: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8032: 8028: 8024: 8023: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8010: 8009:User:King4057 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7993: 7992: 7979: 7975: 7971: 7970: 7964: 7959: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7950: 7949:User:King4057 7946: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7932: 7923: 7920: 7919:User:King4057 7915: 7914: 7913: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7897: 7892: 7889: 7886: 7885: 7883: 7882: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7876: 7869: 7865: 7861: 7860: 7854: 7853: 7852: 7851: 7850: 7849: 7844: 7841: 7840:User:King4057 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7830: 7826: 7822: 7821: 7815: 7814: 7809: 7808:organizations 7805: 7800: 7799: 7798: 7797: 7794: 7793:User:King4057 7788: 7785: 7769: 7766: 7765:User:King4057 7761: 7760: 7759: 7756: 7751: 7745: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7732: 7728: 7727: 7722: 7717: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7710: 7707: 7702: 7696: 7689: 7685: 7671: 7667: 7663: 7662: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7648: 7647: 7644: 7640: 7639: 7636: 7624: 7619: 7616: 7612: 7611: 7607: 7597: 7590: 7589: 7585: 7581: 7576: 7571: 7561: 7557: 7553: 7552: 7547: 7543: 7538: 7533: 7530: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7518: 7514: 7503: 7496: 7492: 7488: 7487: 7482: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7477: 7473: 7469: 7468:Article123456 7462: 7458: 7454: 7452: 7448: 7446: 7442: 7438: 7437: 7436: 7431: 7427: 7425: 7421: 7419: 7415: 7413: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7402: 7398: 7394: 7393: 7388: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7381: 7377: 7376:Article123456 7373: 7366: 7361: 7358: 7357: 7353: 7349: 7340: 7336: 7332: 7329: 7325: 7321: 7317: 7313: 7312: 7307: 7306: 7305: 7302: 7294: 7293: 7288: 7283: 7273: 7272: 7269: 7264: 7258: 7248: 7239: 7235: 7231: 7230: 7224: 7223: 7222: 7221: 7220: 7219: 7215: 7211: 7207: 7192: 7188: 7184: 7183: 7177: 7176: 7175: 7172: 7170: 7169: 7163: 7161: 7160: 7153: 7149: 7146: 7145: 7144: 7140: 7136: 7135: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7122: 7118: 7114: 7109: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7094: 7091: 7087: 7080: 7075: 7072: 7071: 7068: 7062: 7048: 7044: 7040: 7039: 7033: 7027: 7023: 7019: 7014: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7005: 7001: 7000: 6994: 6993: 6992: 6989: 6987: 6986: 6980: 6978: 6977: 6970: 6966: 6965: 6964: 6961: 6959: 6958: 6952: 6950: 6949: 6942: 6936: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6924: 6920: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6904: 6900: 6894: 6890: 6886: 6885: 6880: 6873: 6857: 6853: 6849: 6842: 6835: 6834: 6833: 6829: 6825: 6824: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6813: 6812: 6811: 6808: 6804: 6800: 6796: 6792: 6789: 6788: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6768: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6758: 6757: 6753: 6749: 6731: 6727: 6723: 6722: 6716: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6705: 6701: 6697: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6682: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6664: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6636: 6635: 6632: 6631: 6615: 6612: 6611: 6608: 6599: 6594: 6591: 6590: 6586: 6582: 6581:Guillaume2303 6578: 6571: 6562: 6558: 6554: 6553: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6542: 6538: 6534: 6529: 6527: 6523: 6519: 6518: 6512: 6510: 6494: 6490: 6486: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6476: 6472: 6471: 6466: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6441: 6437: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6428: 6424: 6420: 6415: 6411: 6407: 6403: 6399: 6389: 6388: 6384: 6383:User:King4057 6373: 6366: 6362: 6361:User:King4057 6358: 6357: 6356: 6355: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6335: 6332: 6328: 6324: 6323: 6317: 6316: 6311: 6310: 6305: 6304: 6303: 6302: 6298: 6297:User:King4057 6294: 6267: 6263: 6259: 6258: 6252: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6210: 6206: 6205:User:King4057 6202: 6200: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6186: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6155: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6146: 6145: 6144: 6143: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6112: 6108: 6104: 6103: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6076: 6075: 6071: 6070:User:King4057 6054: 6050: 6049:User:King4057 6045: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6034: 6023: 6019: 6015: 6014: 6008: 6007: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5999: 5986: 5983: 5980: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5971: 5962: 5958: 5957:User:King4057 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5946: 5939: 5935: 5931: 5930: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5910: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5878: 5873: 5872: 5871: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5863: 5859: 5858:User:King4057 5854: 5853: 5852: 5851: 5848: 5844: 5839: 5831: 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5819: 5818:User:King4057 5813: 5809: 5791: 5787: 5783: 5782:Guillaume2303 5779: 5778: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5768: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5756: 5755:User:King4057 5751: 5750: 5749: 5745: 5741: 5740:Guillaume2303 5736: 5735: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5725: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5707:Guillaume2303 5700: 5695: 5692: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5678: 5672: 5663: 5654: 5650: 5646: 5645: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5592: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5578: 5574: 5570: 5569: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5556: 5552: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5527: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5479: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5456: 5455: 5444: 5437: 5433: 5429: 5428: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5396: 5385: 5382: 5377: 5371: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5341: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5330: 5325: 5319: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5297: 5291: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5280: 5275: 5269: 5263: 5253: 5244: 5241: 5239: 5238: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5221: 5219: 5218: 5211: 5207: 5200: 5195: 5194: 5190: 5186: 5182: 5178: 5168: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5152: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5129: 5122: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5082: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5058: 5050: 5046: 5043: 5040: 5039: 5034: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5027: 5010: 5006: 5005: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4990: 4988: 4984: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4962: 4956: 4954: 4947: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4929:, in fact. -- 4928: 4919: 4916: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4902: 4896: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4870: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4856: 4854: 4850: 4845: 4840: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4818: 4813:wikimedia.org 4800: 4797: 4792: 4791: 4787: 4785: 4775: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4759: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4723: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4704: 4700: 4698: 4694: 4693: 4688: 4684: 4679: 4678: 4674: 4666: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4655: 4647: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4565: 4561: 4557: 4556: 4551: 4544: 4538: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4528:Guillaume2303 4522: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4487: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4458: 4453: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4437: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4422: 4421: 4419: 4403: 4399: 4397: 4395: 4393: 4387: 4382: 4370: 4366: 4361: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4349: 4344: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4322:Colin Digiaro 4319: 4309: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4295: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4273: 4270:wikimedia.org 4259: 4255: 4250: 4248: 4242: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4204: 4198: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4149: 4144: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4129: 4126: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4108: 4103: 4101: 4096: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4062: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4048: 4045:wikimedia.org 4034: 4030: 4026: 4020: 4012: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3960: 3958: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3922: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3907: 3906: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3894: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3862: 3857: 3852: 3850: 3844: 3833: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3758: 3757: 3751: 3747: 3742: 3740: 3734: 3732: 3728: 3723: 3722: 3717: 3713: 3708: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3660: 3656: 3650: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3619: 3613: 3607: 3605: 3597: 3592: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3585: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3565: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3547: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3522: 3517: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3502: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3460: 3455: 3451: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3437: 3431: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3419: 3418: 3411: 3407: 3399: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3383: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3359: 3356: 3354: 3349: 3345: 3337: 3334: 3331: 3328: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3314: 3308: 3300: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290:Maryana (WMF) 3283: 3279: 3276: 3275:Ryan Faulkner 3272: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3264: 3254: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3192: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3129: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3084: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2975: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2948: 2942: 2940: 2939: 2931: 2926: 2925: 2920: 2919: 2914: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2876: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2855: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2823: 2819: 2813: 2810: 2808: 2807: 2801: 2799: 2798: 2791: 2785: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2754: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2707: 2704: 2703: 2697: 2696: 2689: 2684: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498:Guillaume2303 2491: 2486: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2470: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2439: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2382: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2361: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2314: 2309: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274:Guillaume2303 2268: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2250:Maryana (WMF) 2246: 2244: 2240: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2210: 2204: 2199: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2132: 2123: 2119: 2113: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2077: 2065: 2059: 2052: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2024:. So long! -- 2023: 2018:</ref: --> 2016: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1989: 1986: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1927: 1921: 1912: 1911:being written 1908: 1905: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1790: 1787: 1782: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1755: 1749: 1748: 1744: 1738: 1733: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1681: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1562: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1511: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1490: 1489:Jenna Marbles 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1477: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1443: 1434: 1430: 1429:GloZell_Green 1420: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1277: 1271: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1180: 1170: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1152:Of course. 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1134: 1127: 1122: 1120: 1117:You wrote at 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104:User talk:DGG 1096: 1095: 1094: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 252: 248: 245: 241: 238: 234: 230: 229: 225: 222: 218: 214: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 177:NPP & AfC 174: 170: 166: 162: 160: 159: 154: 153: 152: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143:User talk:DGG 135: 134: 133: 131: 130: 124: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 80: 76: 71: 64: 63: 60: 55: 39: 35: 30: 23: 10415: 10405: 10388: 10382: 10370: 10336: 10330: 10306: 10300: 10296: 10291: 10286: 10269: 10231: 10225: 10202: 10175: 10063: 10057: 10055: 10047: 10038: 10010: 10007: 9999: 9996: 9977: 9971: 9945: 9890: 9872: 9842: 9822: 9813: 9811: 9776: 9737: 9717: 9711: 9682: 9660:Template:Z48 9629: 9603:Dennis Brown 9602: 9591: 9585: 9564:Dennis Brown 9563: 9559: 9524: 9518: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9478: 9447: 9427: 9420: 9413: 9399: 9393: 9378: 9371: 9364: 9351: 9335: 9329: 9315: 9302: 9286: 9280: 9276: 9252: 9246: 9230: 9224: 9198: 9195: 9155: 9149: 9123: 9100: 9072:Dennis Brown 9071: 9034: 9030: 9027: 8926: 8861: 8855: 8792:Dennis Brown 8791: 8769: 8763: 8740:Dennis Brown 8739: 8735: 8719: 8713: 8709: 8694:Okeyes (WMF) 8684: 8680: 8678: 8664: 8661: 8645: 8639: 8613: 8599: 8593: 8572:Hi, I got a 8571: 8563: 8552: 8546: 8524: 8510: 8504: 8468: 8452: 8446: 8411: 8405: 8370: 8362: 8340: 8307: 8301: 8263: 8257: 8237:elaborate. 8225: 8219: 8189: 8181: 8170: 8164: 8141: 8133: 8026: 8020: 7973: 7967: 7962: 7863: 7857: 7824: 7818: 7807: 7803: 7789: 7781: 7743:Dennis Brown 7730: 7724: 7720: 7715: 7694:Dennis Brown 7684:WP:EASYMONEY 7681: 7665: 7659: 7643: 7637:Buster Seven 7635: 7632: 7622: 7605: 7594: 7584:100000 Edits 7583: 7555: 7549: 7536: 7509: 7501: 7490: 7484: 7434: 7405: 7396: 7390: 7369: 7359: 7348:Okeyes (WMF) 7344: 7334: 7324:office hours 7319: 7309: 7303: 7300: 7286: 7279: 7256:Dennis Brown 7251: 7233: 7227: 7204: 7186: 7180: 7167: 7166: 7158: 7157: 7138: 7132: 7092: 7083: 7073: 7058: 7042: 7036: 7003: 6997: 6984: 6983: 6975: 6974: 6956: 6955: 6947: 6946: 6916: 6896: 6882: 6876: 6827: 6821: 6771: 6765: 6745: 6725: 6719: 6714: 6685: 6679: 6674: 6642: 6626: 6621: 6613: 6602: 6592: 6576: 6574: 6556: 6550: 6533:Okeyes (WMF) 6530: 6524:test it and 6521: 6515: 6513: 6506: 6474: 6468: 6464: 6395: 6379: 6371: 6326: 6320: 6290: 6261: 6255: 6106: 6100: 6077: 6067: 6017: 6011: 5933: 5927: 5814: 5810: 5807: 5771: 5765: 5728: 5722: 5703: 5693: 5679: 5676: 5661: 5648: 5642: 5572: 5566: 5530: 5524: 5482: 5476: 5458:Thank you! 5457: 5450: 5442: 5431: 5425: 5402: 5394: 5369:Dennis Brown 5344: 5338: 5317:Dennis Brown 5300: 5294: 5289: 5267:Dennis Brown 5259: 5251: 5236: 5235: 5216: 5215: 5209: 5203: 5185:Okeyes (WMF) 5177:Office Hours 5174: 5166: 5155: 5149: 5125: 5085: 5079: 5054: 5048: 5036: 5023: 5008: 5002: 4986: 4978: 4952: 4931:Demiurge1000 4925: 4917: 4914: 4905: 4899: 4894: 4876: 4860:Okeyes (WMF) 4857: 4851:tomorrow at 4848: 4844:Abuse Filter 4841: 4837:the talkpage 4826: 4822: 4821: 4816: 4801: 4793: 4789: 4788: 4781: 4773: 4762: 4756: 4729: 4713:Okeyes (WMF) 4705: 4701: 4692:NPT talkpage 4690: 4680: 4676: 4675: 4671: 4657: 4656: 4653: 4645: 4634: 4628: 4618: 4612: 4587: 4567: 4553: 4547: 4525: 4490: 4484: 4461: 4451: 4440: 4434: 4418: 4411: 4385: 4379:As per your 4378: 4315: 4307: 4298: 4292: 4277:Okeyes (WMF) 4274: 4258:office hours 4251: 4243: 4240: 4207: 4201: 4200:discussion. 4196: 4171: 4155:Okeyes (WMF) 4152: 4145: 4133:office hours 4130: 4127: 4116:Okeyes (WMF) 4107:office hours 4104: 4097: 4094: 4086: 4068: 4052:Okeyes (WMF) 4049: 4032: 4021: 4018: 4010: 3955: 3934: 3925: 3919: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3860: 3855: 3853: 3848: 3845: 3839: 3830: 3808: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3753: 3743: 3735: 3724: 3719: 3709: 3672: 3637: 3631: 3608: 3601: 3581: 3573: 3568: 3566: 3551:Open Biology 3548: 3545: 3542:Open Biology 3531: 3525: 3520: 3485: 3475: 3469: 3457: 3440: 3434: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3405: 3397: 3386: 3380: 3360: 3357: 3342: 3321: 3309: 3306: 3287: 3260: 3252: 3238: 3222: 3216: 3195: 3176:JakeInJoisey 3174:. Regards. 3157:JakeInJoisey 3153: 3142:JakeInJoisey 3135: 3127: 3114: 3108: 3079: 3064: 3058: 3008: 3002: 2963:User:K.Burke 2958: 2946: 2945: 2937: 2936: 2928: 2922: 2916: 2863: 2857: 2853: 2832: 2826: 2805: 2804: 2796: 2795: 2760: 2752: 2743: 2737: 2715: 2710: 2699: 2692: 2688:acquiescence 2680: 2672: 2656: 2653: 2640: 2634: 2580: 2574: 2534: 2532: 2518: 2512: 2494: 2484: 2473: 2467: 2455: 2437: 2433: 2425: 2403: 2388: 2380: 2369: 2363: 2349: 2343: 2338: 2321:Dennis Brown 2317: 2307: 2296: 2290: 2271: 2261: 2247: 2236: 2211: 2208: 2197: 2169: 2163: 2138: 2130: 2100: 2094: 2071: 2063: 2028: 2012: 1998: 1995: 1987: 1984: 1973: 1967: 1941: 1933: 1916: 1906: 1892:: Maryana's 1889: 1875: 1861: 1844: 1839: 1832: 1807:— Preceding 1791: 1783: 1768: 1766: 1756:for deletion 1734:at the end. 1729: 1713: 1707: 1703: 1684: 1654: 1644: 1638: 1626: 1618: 1602: 1596: 1577: 1574: 1556: 1548: 1534: 1517: 1514:uw templates 1509: 1498: 1492: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1426: 1418: 1403: 1397: 1371: 1365: 1338: 1324: 1318: 1298: 1293: 1283: 1280:Chinmaya.328 1275: 1264:~ AdvertAdam 1263: 1262: 1252: 1244: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1176: 1168: 1159: 1153: 1129: 1124: 1114: 1103: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1051: 1000: 949: 898: 847: 796: 745: 694: 643: 592: 541: 490: 439: 388: 337: 286: 243: 236: 232: 231: 179:, 164: 163: 156: 155: 149: 148: 142: 140: 139: 138: 128: 127: 126: 122: 22:old revision 19: 18: 10176:Join us at 9408:Thanks! :) 9359:? Regards. 8543:User:Pharos 7326:session at 7301:Hey all :) 7108:over to AFD 7066:Dr. Blofeld 6941:WP:DIPLOMAT 6913:Ambassadors 6606:Dr. Blofeld 5615:QueenCity11 5583:QueenCity11 5551:QueenCity11 5501:QueenCity11 5460:QueenCity11 5409:History2007 5179:session at 4790:Hand-coding 4392:discussions 4112:my talkpage 3313:user:Jaobar 3140:. Regards. 2915:in today's 2399:coatracking 2313:Dan Littman 1951:—Preceding 1866:SDPatrolBot 1862:SDPatrolBot 1614:Harry Yount 1343:technique. 1133:WP:USERPAGE 199:, 20:This is an 10172:Sat Jun 30 9877:. Thanks, 9537:SPhilbrick 9494:SPhilbrick 9457:HairedGirl 8685:10 percent 8138:Thank you! 8067:news story 7899:generally. 7721:encouraged 7513:Cikgubrian 5699:Boundary 2 5148:tomorrow. 4982:elsewhere) 4740:Hamilton83 4711:. Thanks, 4664:interface. 4414:DreamField 4381:discussion 4241:Hey guys. 4217:digging". 4095:Hey guys! 4019:Hey guys! 3752:(comment: 3307:Dear DGG, 3138:User:Atama 2711:Mea culpa. 2490:Mechademia 2412:. Cheers, 2243:discussion 2135:Notability 2026:Sp33dyphil 1938:Novelguide 1435:. Thanks. 1361:at AN/I: 1212:Cogitating 193:Notability 10351:George Ho 10317:George Ho 10273:George Ho 10164:template. 9930:template. 9861:Read the 9643:WP:UWTEST 9223:WorldCat 9037:Davidch12 8710:decreased 8690:this page 7804:companies 7372:Akhtaboot 7328:20:00 UTC 7210:IRWolfie- 6700:My76Strat 6629:Shankbone 6402:WP:BEFORE 6376:Wikimania 5877:Knowledge 5206:AFDing it 5181:18:00 UTC 4987:Assistant 4979:Associate 4880:Coaster92 4853:22:00 UTC 4755:tonight. 4326:Guy Bavli 4219:Rangoon11 4179:Rangoon11 4153:Regards, 4141:18:00 UTC 4065:Thanks... 3911:WP:MENTOR 3746:talk page 3339:properly. 3263:WP:UWTEST 3020:Scott Mac 2971:Scott Mac 2875:Scott Mac 2854:everyone 2844:Scott Mac 2842:change.-- 2767:Scott Mac 2203:WP:UWTEST 2001:this tool 1835:WP:UWTEST 207:, 175:, 158:Reminders 10199:CSD film 10107:Garamond 10039:possibly 10013:Garamond 9997:Hi DGG, 9780:contribs 9465:contribs 9107:Mugginsx 9028:Hi DGG, 8531:Ynhockey 8427:Mugginsx 8390:Mugginsx 8218:thanks. 7806:, it is 7346:Thanks! 7121:Contribs 7096:contribs 6531:Thanks! 6154:this one 5256:Thoughts 5132:Qwyrxian 5026:sourcing 4974:subject. 4817:Signpost 4598:Qwyrxian 4502:Smkolins 4468:Smkolins 4075:Chrisrus 3693:ABN AMRO 3350:instead. 3089:Gaijin42 2924:Time Out 2918:Observer 2757:FYI: NPA 2535:for free 2209:Hi DGG, 2056:You can 1907:XLinkBot 1894:proposal 1821:contribs 1809:unsigned 1659:Yeller21 1441:Gujarati 1303:Qwyrxian 240:Sept-Dec 213:Sourcing 183:, 171:, 129:ARCHIVES 79:contribs 38:contribs 10048:certain 10003:wp:prod 9948:Uncle G 9879:DPL bot 9824:Uncle G 9788:Uncle G 9760:Spartaz 9744:Uncle G 9728:Spartaz 9697:Nyttend 9253:Fortune 8667:Spartaz 8662:Hi DGG 8485:RivBitz 8476:Bearian 8206:Shalott 8148:Jim1138 7963:succeed 7335:believe 7018:Bgwhite 6919:Bgwhite 6899:RFC bot 6848:Kumioko 6799:Kumioko 6794:little. 6781:things. 6748:Kumioko 6646:Nyttend 6443:answer. 6293:WP:CORP 5038:notable 4570:RFC bot 3840:Hi DGG, 3673:Hi DGG, 3604:on Meta 3506:Thincat 2961:. Were 2657:ideally 2414:WWB Too 2241:). The 1953:undated 1876:Twinkle 1813:Eraoihp 1779:deleted 1438:Rangilo 1433:message 1383:BusterD 1345:BusterD 1139:Shirt58 251:Mar-Apt 247:Jan-Feb 217:Fiction 201:Schools 69:Uncle G 28:Uncle G 10222:WT:CSD 10186:Pharos 9689:WP:CSD 9584:done. 9542:(Talk) 9499:(Talk) 9491:you.-- 9461:(talk) 9207:JohnCD 9171:Silver 9131:Silver 9024:CYGNSS 8281:Warden 8239:Warden 8071:PRWeek 7784:Ragans 7546:WP:OWN 7542:WP:COI 6662:issue. 6522:please 5909:WP:BRD 5838:Silver 5210:almost 5104:Drmies 4805:okeyes 4658:coding 4402:Tonkie 4360:Silver 4343:Silver 4336:, and 4262:okeyes 4037:okeyes 3994:Tonkie 3968:Tonkie 3962:using 3877:Tonkie 3856:hidden 3813:Tonkie 3777:Tonkie 3701:Fortis 3521:should 3363:Jaobar 3205:yck C. 2339:always 2205:update 2179:it. -- 1849:Huggle 1845:Huggle 1687:Crusio 1620:Cullen 1471:thinks 10389:talk 10337:talk 10307:talk 10232:talk 10112:Lethe 10096:Best, 10064:talk 10018:Lethe 9978:talk 9849:Halle 9718:talk 9592:talk 9525:talk 9455:Brown 9400:talk 9336:talk 9287:talk 9277:knows 9231:talk 9203:WP:BK 9176:seren 9156:talk 9148:AfC.) 9136:seren 9067:WP:RS 8862:talk 8770:talk 8720:talk 8646:talk 8600:talk 8553:talk 8511:talk 8453:talk 8412:talk 8351:Ahunt 8308:talk 8264:talk 8226:talk 8171:talk 8027:talk 7974:talk 7864:talk 7825:talk 7731:talk 7666:talk 7556:talk 7491:talk 7397:talk 7276:Malls 7234:talk 7187:talk 7139:talk 7043:talk 7004:talk 6828:talk 6772:talk 6726:talk 6715:which 6686:talk 6675:never 6624:David 6618:Hello 6557:talk 6549:both. 6475:talk 6327:talk 6262:talk 6107:talk 6018:talk 5934:talk 5843:seren 5772:talk 5729:talk 5649:talk 5573:talk 5531:talk 5483:talk 5432:talk 5345:talk 5301:talk 5156:talk 5086:talk 5009:talk 4906:talk 4763:talk 4635:talk 4619:talk 4491:talk 4441:talk 4365:seren 4348:seren 4299:talk 4208:talk 4071:NXIVM 3964:email 3926:talk 3712:NPPer 3683:from 3638:talk 3532:talk 3476:talk 3441:talk 3387:talk 3223:talk 3115:talk 3065:talk 3009:talk 2864:talk 2833:talk 2744:talk 2701:rolls 2641:talk 2581:talk 2519:talk 2474:talk 2456:fully 2370:talk 2350:talk 2297:talk 2170:talk 2101:talk 2013:onto 1974:talk 1714:talk 1645:talk 1603:talk 1499:talk 1404:talk 1372:talk 1325:talk 1245:talk 1160:talk 1052:2023: 1001:2022: 950:2021: 899:2020: 848:2019: 797:2018: 746:2017: 695:2016: 644:2015: 593:2014: 542:2013: 491:2012: 440:2011: 389:2010: 338:2009: 287:2008: 244:2007: 237:2006: 10437:talk 10422:talk 10355:talk 10321:talk 10277:talk 10262:and 10246:talk 10210:talk 10190:talk 10124:Mail 9952:talk 9883:talk 9828:talk 9792:talk 9774:talk 9748:talk 9701:talk 9669:talk 9654:talk 9428:fent 9414:Kosm 9379:fent 9365:Kosm 9310:Hahc 9265:) | 9262:talk 9211:talk 9126:this 9124:Was 9111:talk 9041:talk 8996:here 8698:talk 8681:much 8658:Mail 8624:talk 8583:talk 8527:here 8489:talk 8481:here 8431:talk 8394:talk 8355:talk 8349:. - 8285:talk 8243:talk 8198:Lady 8152:talk 7945:here 7716:paid 7645:Talk 7544:and 7517:talk 7472:talk 7380:talk 7352:talk 7308:The 7282:here 7214:talk 7117:Talk 7113:Dori 7102:and 7090:talk 7022:talk 6923:talk 6903:talk 6852:talk 6803:talk 6752:talk 6704:talk 6650:talk 6585:talk 6537:talk 6489:talk 6485:SL93 6423:talk 6419:SL93 5786:talk 5744:talk 5711:talk 5685:talk 5619:talk 5587:talk 5555:talk 5505:talk 5464:talk 5413:talk 5189:talk 5136:talk 5108:talk 5068:talk 4985:For 4977:For 4960:TALK 4935:talk 4927:here 4884:talk 4864:talk 4839::). 4831:and 4744:talk 4717:talk 4697:here 4687:this 4683:this 4602:talk 4574:talk 4532:talk 4506:talk 4472:talk 4417:Arts 4281:talk 4223:talk 4183:talk 4159:talk 4137:here 4120:talk 4079:talk 4056:talk 3998:talk 3972:talk 3881:talk 3861:crap 3817:talk 3781:talk 3750:HERE 3731:THIS 3703:and 3654:talk 3617:talk 3596:here 3559:talk 3510:talk 3487:jc37 3459:jc37 3417:jc37 3367:talk 3348:HERE 3317:HERE 3303:Obar 3294:talk 3245:talk 3180:talk 3172:RfCs 3161:talk 3146:talk 3093:talk 3034:talk 2896:talk 2790:this 2763:this 2694:Tide 2665:talk 2610:talk 2596:talk 2562:talk 2547:talk 2502:talk 2418:talk 2325:talk 2278:talk 2254:talk 2239:here 2231:here 2221:here 2185:talk 2150:talk 2117:talk 2081:talk 1925:talk 1870:here 1857:here 1817:talk 1799:talk 1742:talk 1691:talk 1566:talk 1541:talk 1527:talk 1521:. -- 1447:talk 1387:talk 1349:talk 1307:talk 1294:with 1216:talk 1193:and 1143:talk 1042:, 1030:, 1026:, 991:, 979:, 975:, 940:, 928:, 924:, 889:, 877:, 873:, 838:, 826:, 822:, 787:, 775:, 771:, 736:, 724:, 720:, 685:, 673:, 669:, 634:, 622:, 618:, 583:, 571:, 567:, 532:, 520:, 516:, 465:, 418:, 414:, 371:, 367:, 363:, 359:, 355:, 347:, 343:, 332:, 328:, 316:, 111:diff 105:) | 103:diff 91:diff 75:talk 34:talk 10384:DGG 10361:C) 10332:DGG 10302:DGG 10227:DGG 10184:!-- 10159:ygm 10154:or 10059:DGG 9973:DGG 9925:ygm 9920:or 9863:FAQ 9814:not 9713:DGG 9693:AFD 9587:DGG 9520:DGG 9463:• ( 9395:DGG 9331:DGG 9282:DGG 9226:DGG 9151:DGG 8857:DGG 8765:DGG 8715:DGG 8641:DGG 8595:DGG 8548:DGG 8506:DGG 8448:DGG 8407:DGG 8345:at 8303:DGG 8259:DGG 8221:DGG 8166:DGG 8022:DGG 7969:DGG 7859:DGG 7820:DGG 7726:DGG 7686:at 7661:DGG 7633:``` 7551:DGG 7537:not 7486:DGG 7392:DGG 7318:On 7290:• 7229:DGG 7182:DGG 7159:Pam 7134:DGG 7063:.♦ 7038:DGG 6999:DGG 6976:Pam 6948:Pam 6881:on 6823:DGG 6767:DGG 6721:DGG 6681:DGG 6552:DGG 6470:DGG 6465:not 6404:at 6322:DGG 6257:DGG 6102:DGG 6013:DGG 5929:DGG 5767:DGG 5724:DGG 5644:DGG 5568:DGG 5526:DGG 5478:DGG 5427:DGG 5340:DGG 5296:DGG 5290:any 5151:DGG 5081:DGG 5004:DGG 4901:DGG 4895:not 4758:DGG 4630:DGG 4614:DGG 4588:On 4552:on 4486:DGG 4436:DGG 4294:DGG 4203:DGG 4197:any 3921:DGG 3633:DGG 3546:Hi 3527:DGG 3471:DGG 3436:DGG 3382:DGG 3261:Hi 3218:DGG 3202:Der 3110:DGG 3060:DGG 3004:DGG 2938:Pam 2859:DGG 2828:DGG 2797:Pam 2739:DGG 2636:DGG 2576:DGG 2537:at 2514:DGG 2469:DGG 2441:• 2365:DGG 2362:). 2345:DGG 2292:DGG 2165:DGG 2096:DGG 1969:DGG 1853:DGG 1795:noq 1709:DGG 1640:DGG 1598:DGG 1519:FYI 1494:DGG 1476:and 1466:not 1399:DGG 1367:DGG 1320:DGG 1240:DGG 1179:RfC 1155:DGG 1089:, 1038:, 987:, 936:, 885:, 834:, 783:, 732:, 681:, 630:, 579:, 528:, 469:, 461:, 410:, 375:, 351:, 312:, 277:, 185:BLP 43:at 10439:) 10424:) 10391:) 10371:we 10357:) 10339:) 10323:) 10309:) 10297:3. 10292:2. 10279:) 10271:-- 10248:) 10234:) 10212:) 10192:) 10162:}} 10156:{{ 10152:}} 10146:{{ 10066:) 9980:) 9954:) 9928:}} 9922:{{ 9918:}} 9912:{{ 9885:) 9855:| 9830:) 9794:) 9750:) 9720:) 9703:) 9687:— 9666:• 9651:• 9639:. 9609:2¢ 9606:- 9594:) 9570:2¢ 9567:- 9527:) 9410:– 9402:) 9361:– 9338:) 9316:21 9289:) 9257:My 9233:) 9213:) 9205:? 9158:) 9113:) 9105:. 9078:2¢ 9075:- 9043:) 8864:) 8798:2¢ 8795:- 8772:) 8746:2¢ 8743:- 8722:) 8700:) 8648:) 8626:) 8602:) 8585:) 8555:) 8513:) 8491:) 8455:) 8433:) 8414:) 8396:) 8384:, 8380:, 8376:, 8357:) 8310:) 8287:) 8266:) 8245:) 8228:) 8202:of 8194:. 8173:) 8154:) 8029:) 7976:) 7866:) 7827:) 7749:2¢ 7746:- 7733:) 7700:2¢ 7697:- 7668:) 7558:) 7519:) 7493:) 7474:) 7459:, 7443:, 7399:) 7382:) 7354:) 7284:. 7262:2¢ 7259:- 7236:) 7216:) 7189:) 7141:) 7119:⁘ 7110:. 7045:) 7024:) 7006:) 6925:) 6905:) 6897:— 6854:) 6844:}} 6838:{{ 6830:) 6805:) 6774:) 6754:) 6728:) 6706:) 6696:we 6688:) 6652:) 6587:) 6559:) 6539:) 6491:) 6477:) 6425:) 6329:) 6264:) 6109:) 6020:) 5936:) 5788:) 5774:) 5746:) 5738:-- 5731:) 5713:) 5687:) 5651:) 5621:) 5589:) 5575:) 5557:) 5533:) 5507:) 5485:) 5466:) 5434:) 5415:) 5375:2¢ 5372:- 5347:) 5323:2¢ 5320:- 5303:) 5273:2¢ 5270:- 5191:) 5158:) 5138:) 5110:) 5088:) 5070:) 4963:) 4937:) 4908:) 4886:) 4866:) 4786:. 4765:) 4746:) 4719:) 4699:. 4637:) 4621:) 4604:) 4576:) 4568:— 4534:) 4508:) 4493:) 4474:) 4443:) 4332:, 4328:, 4324:, 4301:) 4283:) 4225:) 4210:) 4185:) 4161:) 4122:) 4081:) 4058:) 4047:. 4033:my 4000:) 3992:. 3974:) 3966:. 3928:) 3883:) 3819:) 3783:) 3759:) 3699:, 3651:• 3640:) 3614:• 3561:) 3534:) 3512:) 3478:) 3443:) 3389:) 3369:) 3296:) 3247:) 3225:) 3182:) 3163:) 3148:) 3117:) 3095:) 3067:) 3036:) 3011:) 2898:) 2866:) 2835:) 2792:. 2746:) 2667:) 2643:) 2612:) 2598:) 2583:) 2564:) 2549:) 2521:) 2504:) 2476:) 2420:) 2401:. 2372:) 2352:) 2327:) 2299:) 2280:) 2256:) 2187:) 2172:) 2152:) 2114:• 2103:) 2078:• 2032:• 1976:) 1922:• 1900:, 1882:, 1872:.) 1823:) 1819:• 1801:) 1781:. 1739:• 1716:) 1693:) 1657:Ol 1647:) 1605:) 1563:• 1543:) 1529:) 1501:) 1450:) 1406:) 1389:) 1374:) 1351:) 1327:) 1309:) 1299:he 1247:) 1218:) 1162:) 1145:) 1137:-- 1121:: 1085:, 1081:, 1077:, 1073:, 1069:, 1065:, 1061:, 1057:, 1046:, 1034:, 1022:, 1018:, 1014:, 1010:, 1006:, 995:, 983:, 971:, 967:, 963:, 959:, 955:, 944:, 932:, 920:, 916:, 912:, 908:, 904:, 893:, 881:, 869:, 865:, 861:, 857:, 853:, 842:, 830:, 818:, 814:, 810:, 808:M 806:, 802:, 791:, 779:, 767:, 763:, 759:, 755:, 751:, 740:, 728:, 716:, 712:, 708:, 704:, 700:, 689:, 677:, 665:, 661:, 657:, 653:, 649:, 638:, 626:, 614:, 610:, 606:, 602:, 598:, 587:, 575:, 563:, 559:, 555:, 551:, 547:, 536:, 524:, 512:, 508:, 504:, 500:, 496:, 485:, 481:, 477:, 473:, 457:, 453:, 449:, 445:, 434:, 430:, 426:, 422:, 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 383:, 379:, 324:, 320:, 304:, 300:, 296:, 292:, 273:, 269:, 265:, 261:, 257:, 253:, 249:, 97:| 93:) 77:| 36:| 10435:( 10420:( 10387:( 10353:( 10335:( 10319:( 10305:( 10287:1 10275:( 10266:? 10244:( 10230:( 10208:( 10188:( 10062:( 10054:I 10031:. 9976:( 9950:( 9881:( 9869:. 9851:( 9826:( 9790:( 9777:· 9772:( 9746:( 9716:( 9699:( 9645:) 9614:© 9590:( 9575:© 9523:( 9467:) 9421:1 9398:( 9372:1 9334:( 9285:( 9259:( 9229:( 9209:( 9154:( 9109:( 9083:© 9064:) 9060:( 9039:( 8860:( 8803:© 8768:( 8751:© 8718:( 8696:( 8644:( 8622:( 8598:( 8581:( 8551:( 8509:( 8487:( 8451:( 8429:( 8410:( 8392:( 8388:. 8353:( 8306:( 8283:( 8262:( 8241:( 8224:( 8169:( 8150:( 8025:( 7972:( 7862:( 7823:( 7754:© 7729:( 7705:© 7664:( 7625:. 7554:( 7515:( 7489:( 7470:( 7395:( 7378:( 7350:( 7267:© 7232:( 7212:( 7185:( 7168:D 7137:( 7123:☽ 7115:☾ 7093:· 7088:( 7041:( 7020:( 7002:( 6985:D 6957:D 6937:) 6933:( 6921:( 6901:( 6895:. 6850:( 6826:( 6801:( 6770:( 6750:( 6724:( 6702:( 6684:( 6648:( 6583:( 6555:( 6535:( 6487:( 6473:( 6421:( 6325:( 6260:( 6105:( 6016:( 5932:( 5832:) 5828:( 5784:( 5770:( 5742:( 5727:( 5709:( 5683:( 5647:( 5617:( 5585:( 5571:( 5553:( 5529:( 5503:( 5481:( 5462:( 5430:( 5411:( 5380:© 5343:( 5328:© 5299:( 5278:© 5187:( 5154:( 5134:( 5106:( 5084:( 5066:( 5007:( 4957:( 4933:( 4904:( 4882:( 4862:( 4761:( 4742:( 4715:( 4633:( 4617:( 4600:( 4572:( 4566:. 4530:( 4504:( 4489:( 4470:( 4439:( 4297:( 4279:( 4221:( 4206:( 4181:( 4177:. 4157:( 4118:( 4077:( 4073:! 4054:( 3996:( 3970:( 3924:( 3879:( 3815:( 3779:( 3636:( 3557:( 3530:( 3508:( 3474:( 3439:( 3385:( 3365:( 3292:( 3284:. 3243:( 3221:( 3178:( 3159:( 3144:( 3113:( 3091:( 3085:) 3081:( 3063:( 3032:( 3007:( 2947:D 2909:) 2905:( 2894:( 2887:) 2883:( 2862:( 2831:( 2806:D 2786:) 2782:( 2742:( 2663:( 2639:( 2608:( 2594:( 2579:( 2560:( 2545:( 2517:( 2500:( 2472:( 2416:( 2368:( 2348:( 2323:( 2295:( 2276:( 2252:( 2233:) 2223:) 2183:( 2168:( 2148:( 2099:( 2053:. 2034:© 2030:© 1972:( 1959:. 1902:2 1898:1 1884:2 1880:1 1815:( 1797:( 1712:( 1689:( 1643:( 1601:( 1539:( 1525:( 1497:( 1444:( 1402:( 1385:( 1370:( 1347:( 1323:( 1305:( 1243:( 1214:( 1158:( 1141:( 1091:O 1087:S 1083:A 1079:J 1075:J 1071:M 1067:A 1063:M 1059:F 1055:J 1048:D 1044:N 1040:O 1036:S 1032:A 1028:J 1024:J 1020:M 1016:A 1012:M 1008:F 1004:J 997:D 993:N 989:O 985:S 981:A 977:J 973:J 969:M 965:A 961:M 957:F 953:J 946:D 942:N 938:O 934:S 930:A 926:J 922:J 918:M 914:A 910:M 906:F 902:J 895:D 891:N 887:O 883:S 879:A 875:J 871:J 867:M 863:A 859:M 855:F 851:J 844:D 840:N 836:O 832:S 828:A 824:J 820:J 816:M 812:A 804:F 800:J 793:D 789:N 785:O 781:S 777:A 773:J 769:J 765:M 761:A 757:M 753:F 749:J 742:D 738:N 734:O 730:S 726:A 722:J 718:J 714:M 710:A 706:M 702:F 698:J 691:D 687:N 683:O 679:S 675:A 671:J 667:J 663:M 659:A 655:M 651:F 647:J 640:D 636:N 632:O 628:S 624:A 620:J 616:J 612:M 608:A 604:M 600:F 596:J 589:D 585:N 581:O 577:S 573:A 569:J 565:J 561:M 557:A 553:M 549:F 545:J 538:D 534:N 530:O 526:S 522:A 518:J 514:J 510:M 506:A 502:M 498:F 494:J 487:D 483:N 479:O 475:S 471:A 467:J 463:J 459:M 455:A 451:M 447:F 443:J 436:D 432:N 428:O 424:S 420:A 416:J 412:J 408:M 404:A 400:M 396:F 392:J 385:D 381:N 377:O 373:S 369:A 365:J 361:J 357:M 353:A 349:M 345:F 341:J 334:D 330:N 326:O 322:S 318:A 314:J 310:J 308:, 306:M 302:A 298:M 294:F 290:J 283:D 281:, 279:N 275:O 271:S 267:A 263:J 259:J 255:M 113:) 109:( 101:( 89:( 81:) 73:( 62:. 40:) 32:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.